Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Pope.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Before the House goes into recess, I think it important to raise matters relating to the welfare of my constituents; the conduct of business with integrity; and the way in which a major national utility conducts its affairs. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the House, of the Government and of the regulator of the Office of Water Services. I shall discuss the circumstances surrounding a planning application to build a business park, which was made by the Arrowcroft Group, the property partner of North West Water. I should like to make it clear that what I say pertains in no way to the merits of the application, which will be considered by a public inquiry under a Government inspector later this year.
I shall talk about the conduct of people in Arrowcroft, in North West Water and in other firms. I am sorry to say that their conduct involves lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament. Certain documents that have come into my possession arouse great concern in me.
The Waterside park planning application was mooted some time ago following the failure of a similar application. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and I visited Mr. Ferguson, the chief executive of United Utilities, at the building where North West Water and Norweb—the north-west electricity supplier—are housed, in Warrington. My hon. Friend and I met Mr. Ferguson on 27 March 1998. He assured us that no decision had been taken on whether there would be a planning application. He told us that our views would be taken into account. Furthermore, he said that he would communicate with us when a decision had been made.
However, two weeks earlier, a Mr. Terence Holden of Arrowcroft, who has been in charge of the application, wrote to Mr. Ferguson, saying:
Dorothy told me you would be seeing Bennett and Kaufman on Friday 27th March.
By that date I shall have a much clearer picture on the timing of the application and will keep you advised.
It is important that we do not let the politicians know why we have delayed making the application i.e. because of Highways issues and the state of negotiations with Denton. This would obviously give them an opportunity to apply pressure on both Denton"—
a golf club—
and the Highways Agency.

Mr. Ferguson told us that no decision had been made, but he had two weeks previously been involved in correspondence about making the application, and about the way in which my hon. Friend and I should be dealt with and the matters that were to be concealed from us. He lied to my hon. Friend and me by saying that the application had not been decided on and that we would be contacted when a decision was made.
It has also emerged from material that has come into my possession that certain matters have been deliberately concealed and distorted by those who are planning the application. For example, a letter addressed to the design team from Michael Aukett Architects, says:
The planners agreed that a hotel need not be included in the application.
However, I possess material that says that there would be a hotel and that even contains estimates of the number of workers to be engaged on building it and on working in it.
In addition, North West Water and Arrowcroft claimed that they would provide ample public space to replace the open countryside that they intend to destroy. However, the note goes on to say:
The planners thought that the density of houses … could be increased considerably. They do not like public spaces in the residential areas.
They told us that there would be a lot of public space, but planned to include none.
During that period, my hon. Friend and I tried to obtain information on the damage to the environment that would be inflicted if the planning application were to succeed. There were denials that such damage would occur. Indeed, the claim was that the environment would be enhanced. However, a document circulated within Arrowcroft and North West Water refers to an increase in noise levels for properties along Cornhill lane from 40 to about 65 decibels. Earth-moving noise levels of 55 to 60 decibels were anticipated at Debdale, based on the operation of three bulldozers. Noise levels of 65 decibels were expected at Debdale for a short period; the daytime ambient noise levels would increase from between 45 to 60 decibels to between 60 to 65 decibels. The document noted that
towards the end of the development, construction activities are likely to be taking place close to the properties at Corn Hill Lane where noise levels may be greater than those witnessed in Debdale.
The document also refers to an anticipated increase in traffic:
This may be regarded as a detrimental impact upon the residents there.
While claiming that the development would inflict no adverse environmental impact, documents were being circulated that admitted just such an impact.
One of the worst scandals in the whole affair is the attempt to blackmail residents of an area in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. The residents were blackmailed with detrimental developments to their environment unless they caved in and abandoned their opposition to the planning application. Once again, we shall hear from Mr. Terry Holden—I regret that he appears regularly in the narrative. A good deal of my constituency abuts directly on that of my hon. Friend; in one area, two streets—Debdale lane in my constituency and Kings road in my hon. Friend's constituency—were suffering difficulties that North West Water could have solved.
Mr. Pat McCloskey of United Utilities and North West Water had arranged meetings with my hon. Friend and me. I must point out that Mr. McCloskey is almost the only individual to emerge from the whole affair honourably and with credit, and as someone who wants to do the best for the area in which his company operates. I hope that I do not do him too much damage by saying that—bearing in mind the kind of people with whom he mingles in his work. On 16 January 1998, Mr. Holden wrote to Mr. McCloskey, stating:
The end result is that I have reluctantly agreed to meet with the residents of Cornhill Lane to both inform them of the development plans and to make a first pass at gently trying to ascertain whether they would agree to surrender their rights over Kings Road, in due course, when the new road is built.
Denton golf club—about which I shall have more to say—wanted that road to be taken out of use as one of its conditions for agreeing, in any circumstances, to North West Water's planning proposal.
Mr. Holden continued:
The poor condition of Kings Road would be a very valuable negotiating tool if we move such discussions forward. For that reason, I have told Paula on a number of occasions that we should preferably do no works, but if we are really up against it i.e. it gets dangerous, we should only do the bare minimum as a short term measure.
I have taken the view that it could cost the residents circa £8/10,000 each as a contribution to the maintenance costs and all the time that they are faced with this potential cost we would be in a strong negotiating position.
He was intending to intimidate and to blackmail those residents over their attitude to any planning application.
I fear that I shall again have cause to refer to Mr. Holden's views on my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and myself. The letter went on:
I saw Andrew Bennet again this week. He did not mention the road. He and Kauffman's opposition to the development is fanatical and they will certainly try and use the road situation to their advantage in some way or other.
What that man seemed to fail to understand—obviously, it is not part of his nature—is that people can act for altruistic reasons, in order to assist their constituents. Both my hon. Friend and I have large majorities; although we should like them to be larger, we do not have to go around cherry-picking for votes.
Mr. Holden then wrote to Mr. McCloskey, who had agreed to see my hon. Friend and me, expressing his concerns that Mr. McCloskey was assisting us and our constituents by meeting us. Mr. Holden wrote:
Bearing in mind where we are at the moment North West Water will look foolish should you now talk to them about closure of the road.
I am far from happy about the way this has been handled.
He meant that he was far from happy that Mr. McCloskey was being open and honest, and was trying to assist our constituents.
There was further correspondence about Kings road in which Mr. Holden stated that Denton golf club would not
under any circumstances agree any arrangement which does not include for the closure of Kings Road.

He continued:
I am concerned about the negotiations which will have to be concluded with the ten or so people having rights of way over Kings Road and do not want them to get the idea when the time comes to negotiate that the whole development is dependent on the success of those negotiations!
You will now begin to appreciate why I was so concerned to learn of the discussions with the residents via Kaufman and Bennett. Our best negotiating angle with these residents is to be able to say Kings Road is in poor condition. We could repair it, but you the residents are obliged legally to pay a proportion of the cost i.e. probably £10–15,000 each. If, however, you will agree to us having an option to vary your right of way in due course when the new road is built from Manchester Road to Cornhill Lane … we will carry out short term repairs to Kings Road to improve it for a year or two at our expense. We will also pay you (say £5/10,000 each) when the option is exercised.
In effect, Mr. Holden was saying, "You get in our way and you get nothing; you help us and we'll do a bit of work for you and, in addition, we shall pay you some money."
Mr. Holden wrote again to Mr. McCloskey on 3 February 1998. He said:
Thank you for your letter of 28th January. I have gone to considerable lengths to try and explain to you the position over Kings Road. If we do what you propose"—
that is, helping the constituents of my hon. Friend and myself—
it will remove our best negotiating position and have exactly the opposite effect to that which I hoped to achieve.
You have no liability to pay for the repair of this road and I simply cannot understand why you should offer to do so, particularly when it creates difficulties with regard to the development strategy.
As I view the situation we have played right into the hands of Mr Bennett and Mr Kaufman. Did you not consider it odd that two MPs were getting involved on behalf of 10 residents with regard to the repair of a private access road. Also, one of the residents on Debdale Farm is the leading light in the Action Against Kingswater Campaign.
He continued:
I don't think you will gain any goodwill with these people"—
my hon. Friend and myself—
either in relation to the development or from the corporate point of view and my instinct would be to do nothing to help their cause for the time being.
Mr. McCloskey was badly put out by that. He had cancelled a meeting with my hon. Friend and me for what I thought were reasons arising from his own schedule of engagements, but it now emerges that he had been forced by Mr. Holden to cancel the meeting. Finally, Mr. McCloskey wrote to Mr. Holden:
When we last met, we agreed a two week delay in arranging my meeting with Gerald Kaufman in respect of Debdale Lane. As I have now had contact from the residents and, today, a letter from Gerald Kaufman, I cannot, in all honesty, delay this matter much more.
The words "in all honesty" used by Mr. McCloskey are singularly foreign to others involved in the affair.
Two golf clubs are situated on the land. North West Water and Arrowcroft had decided to destroy one golf club—Fairfield gold club. A letter from Mr. Holden says:
the loss of Fairfield Golf Club is unfortunate.
On the other hand, they were seeking an agreement with the other golf club—Denton golf club—to minimise the opposition at any stage of the planning process or a public inquiry. Therefore, negotiations were taking place between Arrowcroft and Denton golf club. We have a


letter from Mr. Holden to Mr. M. Aukett of Michael Aukett Architects about a meeting that Mr. Aukett was going to hold with the agent of Denton golf club. The letter states:
I am rather concerned that you are meeting Alex Dawson"—
that is the agent—
He will try and pump you for any information he can obtain which will help his negotiations with me.
I think you must express complete ignorance of everything. Otherwise one word could upset the very sensitive balance of my negotiations with them. For example, do not tell him anything about the United Utilities meeting later this month and in particular do not tell him that we are working to get an application submitted by the end of this year.
I have led him to believe we will only submit an application when we have secured a deal with them. They must not think they have us in a corner under time constraints. Their support to the planning application is all a part of the deal so you have to do nothing to enlist their support. Please do not show them any further plans or discuss anything to do with the UDP allocation and our discussions with Tameside.
Mr. Holden was seeking negotiations with Denton golf club in which the club would be brought on side for the project, but he was lying to Denton golf club and concealing information about the course and purpose of the negotiations.
Here is Mr. Holden—yet again—writing once more to Mr. Aukett:
One small point that occurred to me. I think perhaps we should not show your golf course layout on the planning application. I think it would be better if we simply put a red line around the proposed new Denton area and say new 'Denton Golf Course area to be re-configured to their specification'.
If we leave the holes as shown it will provide a ground for objecting by Denton Golf Club and also for members of the public".
Those people are organising a planning application about which they have lied to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish and me, about which they have concealed vital information, and about which they are now behaving in a seriously underhand manner in respect of a crucial establishment, Denton golf club, in the area that they would ruin.
I have yet another letter from Mr. Holden, in which he states:
One way to resolve all the land issues surrounding this site (Denton, Fairfield, Kings Road, rights of way, ownership of roads etc) would be to persuade the Local Authority to use their CPO powers in due course. This would be time consuming, expensive and should only be considered as a last resort.
While negotiating—apparently in good faith—with Denton golf club, Arrowcroft prepared for the possibility of a compulsory purchase order. That order has now been applied for, and it goes way beyond the area of the planning application. Arrowcroft is now seeking to destroy both golf clubs—Denton and Fairfield.
Throughout, my hon. Friend and I have been trying to obtain details of the costs of the development, which we and all our constituents as customers of North West Water would have to pay. Those costs have been withheld from us, and I can understand why, for, within weeks, two different costings were circulating within the organisation, one of £66 million and another of £104 million. There is no reason to believe that either of those costings is accurate.
Mr. Holden's attitude toward my hon. Friend and me is fairly risible. My hon. Friend is regarded as the more reasonable of us two, as most people might expect. Mr. Holden says in a letter:
Gerald Kaufman the MP for the adjacent constituency is the principal objector, but he has not seen our development proposals and we believe he is somewhat mis-guided in his actions.
He is not the first person to have said that, and I trust that he will not be the last. However, in another letter, Mr. Holden writes:
I suggested to Bennett that he should consider supporting the proposal very carefully. I ventured the idea that he may gain more political 'kudos' by doing so rather than by blindly condemning it.
The letter continues:
I reached a prior agreement with Bennett that neither he nor I would publicise our meetings or use anything discussed for political ends. He has honoured that agreement so far. I am, however, doubtful whether Kaufman would agree to such an arrangement. It is not for me to make such suggestions, but you might like to consider trying to get them to agree before your meeting that it is private and that any matters discussed will not be publicised or passed on to third parties.
With an acumen that ought to ensure his employment as a political commentator for one of our better newspapers, Mr. Holden says:
Political intelligence tells us that Kaufman no longer carries much weight in his party, particularly with 'new labour'. Bennett however appears to have straddled the divide between 'old' and 'new' labour. He has, for example been given a job on an Environmental select committee.
My hon. Friend is no longer present, because he has gone off to his job on the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which he is Chairman. Mr. Holden sums up as follows:
It is not clear why but a definite view has been expressed that Bennett can control Kaufman and it is the former that we should work hard on.
Those are the matters that I thought it appropriate to bring to the attention of the House, but I should like to add one more point. Arrowcroft is the property partner of United Utilities, an enormous organisation, which owns both North West Water and the North Western electricity board, Norweb. It is therefore curious that Arrowcroft is not a public company and that all its shares are held by very few people. A list of shareholders shows an Alan Jones and, a little further down, a Catherine Leslie Jones; they live together and have 35,000 shares between them. The list of shareholders also shows a Bankim Chand Gossai and, further down, an Umeshwatie Devi Gossai; they, too, share an address. Then, we have Barbara Priscilla Eppel, who owns 440,000 shares; Leonard Cedric Eppel, who is chairman of the company and owns 600,000 shares; and Stuart Neil Eppel, who owns 330,000 shares; other members of the Eppel family are also shareholders. Nicholas Paul Hai and Rochelle Eleanor Hai own more than 360,000 shares between them. One short list comprises the names of all the shareholders in the property company of one of the biggest companies in the country—it is a family company, and the relationship between the two companies is baffling, to say the least.
However, it is clear that they are not a very successful family. While the property company registered a profit of £501,472 in 1997, in 1998—these accounts were published last month—it made a loss of £192,531. On the other hand, the family certainly know how to look


after themselves. In 1997, directors' emoluments were £487,204 and, in 1998, they increased to £605,939. The emoluments of the highest-paid director increased in one year from £119,679 to £194,353. The House may agree that certain fishy matters should be investigated.
First, in the light of the evidence that I have presented to the House today, I believe that it would be best for North West Water to withdraw the planning application instantly because it is a shoddy, seedy affair. Secondly, the company should dismiss Mr. Holden who is, at best, a fool and, at worst, a rogue. He does not do any credit to the company for which he works. Finally, I believe that the matter should be referred to Ofwat because a major water company is acting in property speculation in a most disreputable and deceitful way.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I appreciate this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House a subject of overwhelming importance in my constituency. However, I assure hon. Members that I shall not speak for as long as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). When one has a safe seat, it is hardly fair to those hon. Members who represent less safe seats to speak for 30 minutes in this valuable debate.

Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have spoken in debates of this sort for more than 25 years on behalf of my constituents.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Bottomley: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I respect him greatly but, in a debate such as this, it behoves us to be quite brief. I shall try to be that.
I wish to raise the matter of the future of the British Aerospace site at Dunsfold. In recent months, I have received many letters from the up to 1,000 employees on that site whose jobs are in jeopardy. I have also received many letters from members of the local community who value the contribution that the site, which dates back to 1941, makes to the local economy. Many other hon. Members who have Dunsfold workers living in their constituencies have also received letters, and the House will be aware that there is an early-day motion about this problem.
Dunsfold is the home of the Harrier. In the 1960s, this remarkable British aircraft was developed at Dunsfold and it has been manufactured and serviced there ever since. The Hawk aircraft was also developed at Dunsfold in the 1970s. It was manufactured at the site from 1974 until 1989, when production was moved to northern England. Both aircraft continue to provide employment for those at Dunsfold. The Harriers built at Dunsfold are in service to the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy, the United States Marine Corps and the Spanish, Indian, Italian and Thai navies. The Hawks are in service in the United Kingdom, Finland, Kenya, Indonesia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, the United States, Oman, Malaysia and Australia. In other words, Dunsfold is an internationally known site that is important to other nations besides the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for Defence and the House must consider whether the proposed closure jeopardises the long-term viability and integrity of the Harrier fleet. There are also wider questions concerning regional development. These are highly specialised jobs in a prosperous region of the country. With the development of the service industry, financial services and other related industries, specialised design and manufacturing engineering jobs are playing an enormously important role in the employment ecology of the south-east. We must ask how the regional development agencies, and therefore the Departments of Trade and Industry and of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, can play an effective role. Many of us are highly sceptical that regional development agencies are anything more than road blocks and paper pushers. The RDA has certainly been characteristically inert and inactive throughout this saga.
In recent months, I have been in regular contact not only with the management at Dunsfold but with the shop stewards, who have behaved in a tremendously constructive, enlightened and responsible manner. Alan Whyte, a supervisor, was recently quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
I have been working here for 29 years and to come in this morning and hear that the job will come to an end over the next 18 months has come as a little bit of a shock.
All of us accept that we live in a world where employment insecurity is part of day-to-day life. However, there are particular questions surrounding these highly skilled and specialised professions, which have been honed over 30 years of work on the Hawk and the Harrier.
The Harrier is built differently from most modern aircraft in that it is essentially hand crafted. Many in the House have greater expertise in these matters than I, but all hon. Members will agree that the Harrier has systems and modifications that have never been used elsewhere. Those traditional aircraft skills, together with the unique Harrier experience, exist nowhere else.
Although British Aerospace has suggested that it will seek to redeploy the Dunsfold workers at other sites, that does not mean that all will be saved from unemployment. Some employees may be able to find alternative work in the area. However, we must not overlook the fact—I am sure that the Secretary of State will want to satisfy himself about this point—that this team has worked closely together for the past 10 years. A team has existed for 30 years, but this team has worked collaboratively for the past 10 years. Evidence suggests that only about 5 or 10 per cent. of the team would be prepared to relocate because their way of life and their families are established in the south-east. If those employees do not move to the north, it will raise serious questions about the viability of the Harrier programme.
A major new factor is the establishment of the Defence Aviation Repair Agency. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence recently met members of the shop stewards committee to talk about unfair competition. Serious questions remain. I have had on-going correspondence with the Secretary of State for Defence on this subject. The fact is that the rates charged to the Ministry of Defence for return to work on Harriers are £30 an hour at DARA and £51 at Dunsfold. That is because DARA's cost structure is not the same. It operates on an RAF base where infrastructural costs, such as security, runway maintenance and some power charges, are covered by


the MOD. DARA does not have to add in a headquarters charge, a write-off charge or a 10 per cent. profit margin. In other words, it is not a level playing field.
I ask the Secretary of State for Defence, through the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, whether he will establish a formal partnership between DARA and Dunsfold on the Harrier programme. In that way, this wonderful site, those skilled workers and the contribution that they make both to the defence force in Britain and to our exports could be maintained. This Thursday, hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the announcement and I will meet John Weston, the chief executive of British Aerospace. Obviously, we shall want to ask him many questions about how, with that expert team under threat, he can be confident that he can continue to satisfy many of his major customers, including, for example, Boeing, to which he is committed to delivering one aircraft a month.
That is not a matter for the House. However, the House should be concerned about whether the Secretary of State will intervene to ensure that the Harrier programme will not be put in jeopardy and that the assumptions are not over-ambitious and unrealistic, and to say whether he will be prepared to set up a formal partnership with DARA, as outlined in the early-day motion. Furthermore, the DETR and the DTI should reconsider their role. If regional development agencies and Government offices simply produce rhetoric and, when difficult issues arise, get involved only in passing paper, disillusionment will grow. Those jobs make an enormously important contribution in the south-east.
Finally, I make a recommendation that I hope will not be necessary. The Government should adopt a responsible attitude to what might happen to the site in the long term if it is not possible—although I believe that it will be—to reconsider many of the underlying arguments. I commend the activities of Waverley borough council which, with the support of the county council and the Surrey training and enterprise council, under the auspices of the Surrey economic partnership, commissioned an impact study in the light of the announcement. I hope that, before my constituents go away for their summer break, they will, as a result of my having raised the issue in the House, be able to go with greater confidence, good cheer and optimism.

Mr. David Taylor: I want to draw to the attention of the Minister and the House the urgent need for more effective ways to control the major problem for those who live near airports and airfields—aircraft noise, particularly at night.
In my brief time in the House, there have been several debates about the need for action on behalf of those communities enduring chronic night noise from local airports. I want to make my own contribution and suggestions for a possible way ahead. Earlier this year, early-day motion 533, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge), summarised the impact of aircraft noise on nearby communities. As it said, night noise has adverse social consequences and may have a damaging effect on the health of those who live close to airports.
Civil aviation is powering ahead, fired by open access policies. Published air traffic predictions show an annual growth trend of 6 per cent., which will double the number

of flights every 12 years and could dramatically upset the delicate balance between economic expansion and environmental restraint.
Airlines and airports say that aircraft are becoming quieter, and indeed they are. The phasing out, under international agreements, of the noisier chapter 2 aircraft by 2002 is welcome, but it should be noted that, already, 80 per cent. or more of UK-registered large jets are of the more modern and theoretically quieter chapter 3 type. Despite the progressive introduction of those quieter engines, overall noise is escalating because of the greater number of larger aircraft involved, so Government intervention is absolutely necessary.
Last July, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions published a transport White Paper, which stated, among other things, that the Government would enact legislation to enable local authorities to enforce noise mitigation measures for airfields and airports. That legislation and those enforcement powers cannot come soon enough. Noise is a very important issue for those whose homes are near airports or under flight paths.
My particular interest in this matter arises from the presence of East Midlands airport in my constituency. The airport's origins were very much rooted in the local authority consortium that developed it, managed its operations and liaised effectively with nearby residents if problems arose. Since its sale to the private sector some years ago, the airport's fortunes have taken off rapidly.
The airport is now a major employer for our area: 5,000 jobs are located in and around the airport. It is a major regional asset in the provision of scheduled and charter passenger flights. It is a major player in the air freight market. It is the latter point that can produce problems for those living near the airport.
The airport is surrounded by many villages in Leicestershire's border region with Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) and I recently attended a meeting of the parish councils from those villages, who have formed an umbrella group called the Association of Airport Related Parish Councils, or AARPC. Each parish council itemised to us a litany of concerns about the airport, but in every case the core worry was that of night noise, either from over-flying or ground running.
AARPC is urging the local planning authority to protect the well-being of communities near the airport by imposing appropriate restrictions on airport operations. What it is seeking appears to me to be a good template for the extra environmental powers that central Government should consider giving to local government. I shall give two brief examples.
First, AARPC says, flight paths should be agreed so as to minimise the over-flying of residential areas, particularly at night. Secondly, the group is pressing for a regulatory framework that can ensure that ground running and the older chapter 2 or comparable freight aircraft are not a feature of night operations.
It is not only local parish councils that protest long and loud to me. I have a sizeable postbag of complaints from individuals, particularly from the large village of Kegworth. I see a continual stream of constituents at my advice sessions. I have spoken at public meetings called to discuss airport noise. At least three independent community groups are lobbying hard for environmental


improvements to the airport. They are Save Aston Village Environment, or SAVE, People Against Intrusive Noise, or PAIN, and Wings.
Two criticisms frequently surface in my discussions with residents and protest groups. The first is their belief that airport authorities are not policing the flight paths of user aircraft as closely as they might, especially at night. Secondly, residents and protest groups believe that local authorities should monitor aircraft noise at a range of locations in the affected communities. The data from that comprehensive array of survey points would firmly establish the shape and size of the noise contours within the overall noise footprint. The results of the survey should be subject to systematic audit by an independent body before being brought into the public domain and being fed into the planning process when further development is being sought by airport operators, or for enforcement action if appropriate or necessary.
To be fair to East Midlands airport, I must point out that its development policy recognises that it has a duty to minimise and manage the impact of its business on the environment and local villages. Indeed, the first key issue spelt out by its development policy document is tackling the noise associated with planned increases in air traffic movements, which will be linked to two projected extensions to the runway.
Within the obvious and paramount requirements of airport and aircraft safety, the airport has a duty to minimise the noise generated by its operations, but more has to be done if local communities are to be satisfied and noise levels are to be acceptable.
I shall now move briefly from the particular difficulties of our regional airport to the general lessons that can be learned from our experience and applied to the national scene. There is an increasing demand in a fast-moving world for rapid distribution of goods. That in itself puts enormous pressures on air freight services, which can translate into a serious environmental impact on airport communities, binding their quality of life tightly to the operational characteristics of their commercial neighbour. Airport communities badly need a control framework that resident and environmental organisations agree is so lacking at present.
Environmental limits must be set for existing and new or extended airports. Those limits would be permanent criteria that would have to be observed at all times. Their range and type would of course vary to reflect local geography and circumstances, but a number of core limits would apply to all airports. Those would include a cap on the number of air traffic movements, a restriction on types of aircraft to be operated, approved tracks for aircraft related to runway configuration and controlled times of operation. The limits would also specify noise contours to be observed. They would control overnight running of engines or ground power units, the location of public safety zones and a good deal more. The overall aim is to fix limits on air traffic and noise levels permitted at an airport and to define a physical area beyond which further development will not be sanctioned.
An unquestioning attitude to demand-led projections for airport growth is entirely inconsistent with any concept of sustainable development with which I am familiar. In an ideal world, there will be no need for

national noise legislation. Indeed, the White Paper specifically encourages airports to enter into voluntary noise mitigation agreements with their local authorities, and planning policy guidance 24 spells out how planning authorities can best use powers to minimise noise impact by specifying conditions and criteria for permitting noise-sensitive and noise-generating developments.
However, the Government will need to legislate to give new powers to airports and local authorities—to airports so that they can take action against, for instance, non-compliant airlines, and to local authorities so that they can enforce noise mitigation agreements.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the major economic benefits associated with the United Kingdom's network of airports. That commercial success need not be, indeed will not be, jeopardised by a better regulatory framework for noise control. Our Government must not turn a deaf ear to the clamour of concern expressed by airport communities about the night noise that they must endure. It is imperative that there is early legislation to allow both airport shareholders and airport neighbours to get a good night's sleep.

Mr. Anthony Steen: I am worried about three issues, with which I hope the Minister will deal in his winding-up speech so that I may go into the recess much more happily. First, I am worried about bed-blocking in my constituency. It is totally alien to the concept of the national health service and to the Community Care (Residential Accommodation) Act 1992. Secondly, I am concerned about the installation and location of mobile telecommunications masts and their effect on health. Thirdly, I am troubled about the main corridor of public transport between the west country and London: the former Great Western Railway, which is now run by FirstGroup.

Mr. Martin Salter: Hear, hear.

Mr. Steen: The hon. Gentleman has not used the service to the west country, has he?
Bed-blocking is a scurrilous practice that comes about because of bickering between the health authority and local authority social services departments—regardless of what is best for the patient. Some elderly people in South Hams and Torbay are occupying beds in hospitals which they should not be occupying. Often, they are well enough to be moved and should be in residential and nursing homes, which are not full. The phenomenon known as bed-blocking is an absolute disgrace. It uses scarce NHS resources and causes stress to patients and a deterioration in their health following treatment.
So long as the local authority keeps an elderly person in hospital, it does not have to pay for the care. The moment that the patient is discharged from hospital, the responsibility for and cost of care shifts to the local authority social services department budget. The Government pay so long as an elderly person is in hospital, but social services must pick up the tab—paid for from the council tax—as soon as the person is moved into the community.
It costs about £500 to £1,000 a week to provide a bed in a cottage hospital, and between £1,500 and £2,000 a week to keep an elderly person in a district or general


hospital. It does not take much intelligence to work out that given that social services are prepared to pay just in excess of £200 a week for care in a residential home and just over £300 a week for care in a nursing home—non-economic derisory sums that will no doubt be subject to future debates—the local authority is placing an enormous and avoidable burden on the taxpayer by keeping an elderly person in hospital. Refusal to place patients in private residential homes at the appropriate time increases the cost of care almost fourfold.
That is one of the worst examples of financial mismanagement and complete disregard for the welfare of the individual that I have come across. Just by chance, the two local authorities in my constituency—Devon county council and Torbay unitary authority—are Liberal Democrat-controlled. I therefore have the misfortune of having two Liberal Democrat social services departments, which are manipulating the elderly in order to save on council tax.
If social services continue such a practice, I imagine that it will be entirely appropriate for the health authority to contract services directly with the private sector in order to keep costs down. I cannot understand why the local cottage hospital cannot enter into private contracts with local residential and nursing homes and thereby bypass social services departments completely.
Mobile telephone towers impinge on our health. We all complain about these dreadful people—I know that there are none in this place—who walk around with mobile phones, bleepers and various other things. We now see them all over the place. Such people are always waiting for a phone call from someone terribly important—a world leader if one is a politician, or a billionaire for a major contract if one is in industry. They have become as obnoxious as smokers in restaurants. They are on trains and aeroplanes; walking around with such phones has become a disease. People need never be alone so long as they have their mobile phone. How many people do we see sitting alone in cafes and restaurants but talking to somebody on the phone because that makes them feel comfortable?
Given that such phones clearly have a function, it is not surprising that mobile phone towers and base stations are needed to enable people to conduct their conversations. Such towers and masts are growing faster than leylandii, and are now being erected close to many private houses. One recent application in South Hams was for a tower about 100 yd from a large village settlement just outside Totnes.
We are discovering that mobile phones can stew our brains. I hope that hon. Members—at least my hon. Friends—move the phone from one ear to the other so that they stew both sides of their brains. There is no doubt that mobile phones generate much heat. The implication is that masts might also generate heat and, being so close to people's homes, affect the bodies of those who live near them. We now know that heat from the sun is carcinogenic, that smoking gives off heat and causes cancer and that there is a risk that mobile phones cause cancers and growths. There must be a risk that mobile phone towers give off rays that affect our health.
In view of that, will the Government confirm that an environmental impact assessment should be made of every application to erect such towers and that it should include a health risk assessment? As I was one of the first

Members of Parliaments to raise the risk of genetically modified crops in the House about a year and a half ago, it is fitting that I should also raise the health risk from mobile phone towers and base stations.
My third point concerns First Great Western Trains. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Labour Members are present to support me. It is very good that they are, and perhaps they will remain. To get down to Devon and Cornwall one may drive, but the Deputy Prime Minister does not like us doing so, although it is far cheaper and often as quick as going by train. I pay tribute to FirstGroup, which, since it took over Great Western, has wrestled with intractable problems—old rolling stock, worn engines, bumpy track and a work force who seem to have lost much of their morale.
The trains have hardly ever run on time since FirstGroup took over. I am always interested in the reasons for the delay. There are cows on the line near Westbury. I do not know why cows like the line around Westbury, but they are always out on the track. There are sheep at Castle Cary. There are sometimes leaves in tunnels, but I do not know how they get there. Bridges are always being struck by lorries, which delays trains by anything up to an hour, and signal boxes are being knocked out by lightning.
Further delays are caused by passenger incidents. Miraculously, people seemed to fall ill as soon as the train gets to a station, and the train has to stay in the station until the ambulance arrives. Why the patient cannot be left with the station master or one of the station staff while the train carries on, I shall never know.
As hon. Members know, two years ago the service was deplorable and one was lucky to get to the other end without some catastrophe taking place. It has improved; I pay tribute to FirstGroup for that improvement. In the past few months, trains have been arriving more or less on time. However, there is a new timetable. In the summer timetable, journey times have been extended so that what used to be the fast train to Exeter, which took two hours, now takes two hours and 15 minutes. Trains are running to time, but the timetable has been extended.
There is provision in the railway franchises for compensation to be paid when trains arrive more than an hour late. Why should it be necessary to write to FirstGroup for compensation? Why cannot the station master at the station at which one arrives appear, carrying a big bag, and hand money out to the passengers when they get off the train and present their ticket? That would compensate them to some extent for being stuck on the train for the extra hour.
It is a long journey to Devon or the west country, and catering facilities have taken a nose-dive recently. I cannot understand why the items in the catering car cannot be British. These are British trains; why do we always have to have French water? There are about 55 springs in this country. Can you imagine a French train sporting English wine, Mr. Deputy Speaker? You could never expect to see that.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I hope not.

Mr. Steen: There is nothing wrong with English wine. There are about 450 commercial English vineyards, and I know that Madam Speaker enjoys a glass of English wine, as I do.
However, the quality of the products stocked in the catering car has gone downhill. Worse, many of the restaurant cars and the various foods that should be available on the train are not there and the facilities are not provided. Many people rely on the restaurant car when travelling to Cornwall, and it is a great disappointment and a cause of considerable friction when the advertised facilities are not provided.
Finally, the smoking saga on Great Western deserves a mention. If one happens to be a first-class passenger at the weekend, one cannot avoid sitting in a smoking coach. People pour in from every part of the train to smoke in the first-class coach, and a first-class traveller at the weekend needs a gas mask to avoid those smokers who tend to come from the weekend first section. Labour Members probably do not have such problems because they all travel second class—I wonder whether they do—but if one is paying the full price, one wants to be able to travel in a non-smoking coach at the weekend. My advice to first-class weekend travellers is not to pay the first-class price; they should just pay for a second-class ticket and upgrade because they will be smoked out anyway.
I shall not be happy unless those three issues—bed-blocking, mobile phone towers and Great Western—are addressed before we rise next week.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I want to address the House on some of the benefits that have come to my constituency from the Government and then to consider one or two points arising in Ireland.
Before I start talking about the good news for Hull, I should say that we have had one or two disappointments. We did not get our single regeneration budget money this year, for the first time ever, and we did not get our medical school, yet again. However, my constituency has had considerable help from the Government. We have an education action zone, which is changing the attitude of parents, students and teachers and is well supported by local industry. The local newspaper, the Hull Daily Mail, has led a vigorous campaign on raising standards, which is badly needed in the city of Hull, and especially in my constituency.
We have a sure start scheme, which will be of tremendous importance in parts of my constituency where we have a great many teenage pregnancies and single young unmarried mothers. That will do important work in Orchard Park ward and University ward. We shall also be a pilot area for the new deal for the over-50s.
Part of the problem is that the present Government tend to do good by stealth and do not always get their message across about what is happening in individual constituencies, which is of great importance. Help for education in Hull has been of particular strength, giving purpose and ambition, for the first time, to many young people in an area where there is a lack of skilled employment and a great need for important investment to improve citizens' skills.
Although we have been given enormous help for education, we have suffered considerably in relation to access funds, the announcement of which was delayed this year. Two sixth-form colleges in the city and a

general college—Hull college, Wilberforce college and Wyke college—have all had to write to Professor Melville, chairman of the Further Education Funding Council, drawing attention to what has happened.
It might be easier for the House if, instead of making all the points at length, I read out one of the letters that has been sent to Professor Melville. It says:
Re: Student Support/Access Funds.
This college has now received its Access Fund allocation after considerable delay and well after the date when we expected the information. It is now clear, after discussions with Kingston upon Hull Local Authority representatives, that the amount made available to students in financial need in this area will be considerably reduced.
As you are no doubt aware, participation in post-16 education in Hull is very low in comparison to the national average. There are a number of factors which influence the staying-on rate but the fact that the Government has introduced EMAs in pilot areas in order to increase the post-16 participation level would seem to imply an acceptance that an appropriate level of financial support is of great importance.
Against this background the College Corporation has a great deal of anxiety that students in this area will be less likely to participate in post-16 education as the level of support available to them is drastically reduced. We have calculated that a student who would previously have received £750 will now only receive between £350 and £400, and we believe this is likely to have an impact, not only on recruitment but also on retention, in this college where a large percentage of our students formerly received
grants. It continues:
The principle of equality of student support nationally is one which we may all feel able to support, but the reality is that students in Hull will lose out in order to benefit students in more affluent areas where the staying-on rate is already higher.
Enormous investment is being made in the education action zone in an attempt to raise pupils' aspirations, but when pupils reach the age of 16 and transfer to other institutes of further education their grant will be considerably reduced, so the carrot part of encouraging them to stay on in further education will be considerably reduced. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and his colleagues should discuss seriously with Professor Melville of the Further Education Funding Council the effects of such schemes in cities like Hull. It cannot be the Government's intention—indeed, it is not—that the introduction of such schemes should act as a deterrent to students staying on in education, particularly when there is such a great need to encourage pupils to take up their places.
I now turn to some matters that concern Ireland, which to a degree have been overlooked because of the attention that we have been paying to the peace process over the past few weeks. To some extent, that has hidden other things. I shall make three points.
First, I condemn the scurrilous campaign that has been waged against the Bloody Sunday inquiry, including its purpose and its origins. The campaign has involved the witnesses, the judges and the manner in which the inquiry is being conducted. If there were a campaign to undermine the integrity of an inquiry taking place in a court of law, there would be grounds for the Attorney-General to take action for contempt of court. Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will consider the campaign against the inquiry and against the integrity of those who are taking part in it, which could affect the attitudes of witnesses. Perhaps he will consider whether the newspapers involved in the campaign are committing a contempt.
Secondly, I draw attention to two newspaper articles that appeared on 27 June about a Mr. Stobie. One was written by Ed Maloney in The Sunday Tribune and the other by Chris Ryder in the Irish edition of The Sunday Times. Mr. Stobie was on trial nine years ago for possession of weapons, which he alleged had been placed in his property by the police. It is a strange case. When it came to trial, Mr. Stobie claimed that he had been an agent of the security forces and that unless something was done he would reveal all that he knew. A full account of these matters can be found in the newspaper articles to which I have referred.
The important thing about the case of Mr. Stobie is that when possession of arms is alleged in Northern Ireland the onus is on the accused to prove that he had the weapons legitimately. The strange feature is that the police withdrew the case against Mr. Stobie nine years ago after he had made his strange outburst in court. Not only did they do that but they had entered a verdict of not guilty of the offence alleged. It is difficult to see how that can be when the onus on the defence has been changed and a statement has been made setting out the various allegations. The case is then suddenly dropped like a hot potato by the police. Bearing in mind what is coming up under Chris Patten in his report on the RUC, the connections between prosecutions, police informers and its role in myriad cases should be considered extremely carefully.
Thirdly, an inquiry is being conducted in response to the complaints made by the late Mrs. Rosemary Nelson. A leaked document was printed in the newspapers from the chairman of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland. He had produced a commentary on the RUC investigation. It is quite a damning document about the police attitude in the Nelson case. I shall read out the introduction to the commentary to enable the House to get the flavour of it. I shall not take too long because I do not want to waste the time of the House. The introduction reads:
In June 1998 the Chairman of the ICPC, through the medium of an 'in confidence' letter, brought to the attention of the Chief Constable the supervising member's concerns"—
that is Geralyn McNally—
about the RUC's conduct of investigations in the Nelson complaints case. This letter stated the concerns in broad terms and provided some illustrative examples. In the ensuing discussions between the Member, the Chief Constable and the Chairman … the supervising Member rejected any suggestion that her concerns should be expressed in terms of a formal complaint.
That suggestion was made to her by the Chief Constable. The document continues:
This was because her association with the investigation was on the basis of her public appointment under statute.
She was not involved, therefore, as a private citizen. The document then states:
To position herself as a citizen with a grievance, as opposed to an official office holder drawing attention to serious concerns, would have been wholly inappropriate and essentially undermining of her statutory role. The Chief Constable was not of a mind to exercise his discretion to have the matter formally investigated under Article 8 of the Police (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. He did, however, decide to request Commander Mulvihill of the Metropolitan Police, who had been brought in to take over the substantive complaints inquiry, to review also the original RUC investigation.
That is the background to the case.
The conclusions reached by the chairman of the ICPC read:
The report that has been produced could be criticised on a number of levels, not least of them being that it lacks balance.
That is the Mulvihill report. The conclusion continues:
I have worked with Ms McNally for two years now and I am unaware of any defects of intellect"—
she is the supervising officer—
vision, hearing, memory or personal integrity on her part. The outcome of her supervision of this case was not 'the subjective view of one individual' but rather a systematic evaluation of the facts in the matter as they were presented to her. Although the report liberally strays into uninvited comment on the part played by the Commission in this investigation, Mr. Mulvihill offers no personal evaluation of Ms McNally, unlike the Chief Inspector whom, as has already been noted, he considers to be a principled man imbued with a strong sense of duty.
It is interesting that when this matter came to be considered again there was no official examination of the supervising officer, Ms McNally. That is a deficiency and it applies also to the Mulvihill report. The conclusion continues:
Throughout the review, the Commander is frequently faced with either accepting Ms McNally's account of events or that of the Chief Inspector. He consistently opts for the version offered by the Chief Inspector. As was stated at the beginning of this paper, Commander Mulvihill's review lacked the standing of a fully-fledged inquiry and this is reflected in its process, analysis and outcomes. This is in no way a personal criticism of him. He undertook a very difficult assignment with honesty and integrity, but the parameters which were set for the task inevitably meant that many of the opinions which were expressed by him have no more standing than that: they are opinions.
The analysis states that there were several matters of the utmost importance. The first was that the RUC initially refused to investigate the allegations that officers made death threats against Mrs. Nelson and agreed to do so only under pressure from the ICPC. When it did so, it treated the matter as a question of incivility. I accept that a death threat to a solicitor is incivility but others might suggest that it is something stronger than that, something more serious and something that should have been examined with a greater sense of urgency than was shown in this instance. Mr. Donnelly, the chairman of the ICPC, takes the view that treating the matter as one of incivility could be regarded as
resistance to and trivialisation of a serious matter.
Mr. Donnelly said that
a senior RUC officer probing the death threat claims told at least one officer tinder investigation to prepare a statement in advance of interview.
That is contrary to all practice on this island. Later, Mr. Donnelly states that the officers involved were given witness statements of what was being said about them. Again, that is unusual in such an inquiry. The RUC accepted that it was unusual, and it is hoped that it will not happen again.
Mr. Donnelly cites evidence of RUC officers being interviewed on serious charges and asks whether their attitudes are tolerated by the organisation. In some cases, answers to questions were no more than four lines. In many cases there were no substantive answers to questions, only "No comment" or "See my statement." That is regarded by the inquiring officer as being a rigorous inquiry.
Mr. Donnelly notes that, as I pointed out, Sir Ronnie
was not of a mind to exercise his discretion to have the matter formally investigated"—
a matter in which a solicitor claims death threats from RUC officers. So the matter goes on. I shall not weary the House with further details of the complaints.
While we have been discussing the extremely important matter of devolution in Northern Ireland, which we hope will be achieved later this year, matters are still bubbling on in Northern Ireland, sometimes below the surface and sometimes above it. It is sometimes difficult to sustain the belief that the RUC is treating some serious matters with the proper respect and consideration that they deserve. That is shown in the Nelson inquiry and Mr. Donnelly's report, which reveal collusion between the police when threatened by further evidence given by people who have been involved on the murkier side of the security services. Collusion has also been shown in the Stobie matter.
Moreover, there has been a deliberate and virulent campaign by serious newspapers to undermine the integrity of the Bloody Sunday inquiry, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General should consider whether that constitutes a contempt of court.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I say to the House that a large number of hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and, unless contributions are considerably shorter, many of them will be disappointed?

Mr. Richard Livsey: Mindful of what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall try to be brief.
I wish to raise an urgent matter—the state of the United Kingdom sheep industry. Unless immediate action is taken, there will be an exodus from many of the upland areas of Britain. Despite the welcome news last week of the lifting of the beef ban, in practical terms that was largely a psychological lift—not much beef is likely to be exported in the near future as we have lost an entire market.
The Competition Commission report on the dairy sector has not brought joy. That was covered in a debate last week and was sufficient to make the president of the National Farmers Union in Wales announce that he was quitting dairy farming because he could not see any future in it.
I shall try to straddle not the divide between new Labour and old Labour, which was mentioned earlier, but the divide that still exists between the countryside and urban Britain. The vast majority of people in the UK are entirely ignorant of the crisis in the sheep industry. The situation is so serious that in earlier times it would have warranted a royal commission to investigate it and make recommendations.
The sheep industry is suffering as much as other sectors but receives scant publicity. It is the dominant industry in most of Wales, Scotland, Cumbria, north Yorkshire, the Peak district and much of south-west England. It also has

an important role in Northern Ireland. A contraction of the industry would cause much of rural Britain to be further depopulated, and the knock-on economic damage would be equally devastating. The impact on family farms would be enormous.
In my constituency this week, the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society is holding its great show—the largest in the UK in terms of the numbers of visitors. Forty breeds of sheep will be on show, more than at any other show in Britain. It is my duty to speak up not only for my constituents but for all sheep farmers in the United Kingdom. The past three years have been the worst for sheep farming that I can recall in a life that has been spent working in or very close to the livestock industry. Except during the times that I have been blessed to serve in the House, I have been much involved in farming matters.
In my constituency there are far more sheep than human beings—no fewer than 16 sheep to every person. I started my working life at the age of eight, droving sheep from the mart to the railway station and was paid small sums for doing so. Never have I been so worried about the future of the area that I represent and the upland areas of Britain. The root of that worry is the crisis in the sheep industry. I no longer have a pecuniary interest in the industry, but many people whom I know have.
Many hon. Members serve constituencies in which sheep farming plays an important role, and I am sure that they will understand my concern. It is no exaggeration to say that the future of areas such as rural Wales depends primarily on the recovery of the sheep industry. I have no doubt that the same is true in Scotland and vast tracts of rural England. It is not a matter for flippancy; nor is it a storm in a teacup. In debating sheep, we are discussing the future of hundreds of thousands of people and millions of hectares of the United Kingdom.
The average price of finished lambs at the farm gate has fallen by 40 per cent. over the past three years, and 30 per cent. over that in the past month. That has produced a similar decrease in the prices achieved by farmers for store lambs sold off the hills for further finishing on lowland farms, and also for breeding ewes. At the same time, the increase in the value of sterling has driven down the value of European Union subsidies received by sheep farmers, and returns for lambs as well. The sheep industry has suffered a multi-whammy, as there has also been a disastrous 40 per cent. drop in the value of wool on world markets.
The Government's figures show that average farm incomes in the hills have dropped by more than 40 per cent. in each of the past two years. With an average hill farm income in Wales standing at £5,000 per year last year, it is certain that many of those farms are operating at a substantial loss this year. They are also subject to a hill livestock compensatory allowance review, which will have a major impact on the industry.
It is clear that there is no return on the capital invested in the average sheep farm, when drawings are allowed for. I defy anyone to raise a family and live properly on such an income, let alone reinvest in a business. Unless the situation is turned around, there will be no investment in hill farming. To turn it around, the fortunes of the sheep industry will have to improve dramatically.
The tragedy is that the EU is short of sheepmeat. There is no overproduction of sheepmeat in Europe, but we cannot get enough of our sheepmeat onto the European


market to satisfy the demand that undoubtedly exists. It is intensely frustrating that our neighbours in France, for example, are getting prices for Iamb that are 50 per cent, higher than those in Britain. Clearly, we have a marketing problem, not overproduction.
With too much sheepmeat left on the domestic market because it cannot be exported successfully, the big supermarket buyers hold the whip hand. They can force prices down through pressure on the meat processors. One has only to visit a livestock market to see the mobile phones, about which we have just heard, being used by buyers at the other end of the line to tell people in the ring how much they can bid. It smacks somewhat of a cartel.
A further problem is that there are too many old ewes producing hard-to-market small lambs. Last autumn they were practically valueless and have been kept on into the current season. We have many problems, but in the past fortnight we in Wales have started to construct a new all-Wales livestock marketing co-operative to try to tackle some of them. Salvation will come through co-operation—particularly in England now that the regional development agencies, which may be able to help, have been set up—and the big dealers and the big supermarket buyers could be bargained with on a more level playing field.
There is a crisis in respect of cull ewes in the United Kingdom. We need to reduce their number considerably. A cull needs to be carried out, and I hope that the Minister will relay that to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Sadly, the ewes that were not culled last autumn are now the equivalent of skeletons because they have been kept for a year too long. They are valueless and, sadly, but for the sake of animal welfare they ought to be sent to an incinerator. That would be the kindest thing to do. This year's cull ewes, which are coming down the line, will be culled, particularly from the hills, as a matter of the stratification of the sheep industry.
Hon. Members will know that last year the Irish introduced a scheme under which farmers were paid £15 a cull ewe to take them off the market. I believe that such a scheme would be of great value in the United Kingdom, but action needs to be taken now; by October, it will be too late because those ewes will be flooding onto the market. The French require whole carcases—not split carcases which were and still are the order of the day. They can deal with them, and there is a good case for reviewing the matter now that the position in respect of beef has slackened. Disposing of those cull ewes now would mean that there would be fewer lambs next season and stronger demand for next season's lamb crop, which would improve farm incomes and put some much-needed cash into farmers' pockets.
The wool industry is in crisis and the cost of shearing sheep is greater than the value of the wool. Only yesterday I was told of an upland farm on which it cost £1,200 to shear the sheep, but the value of the wool was £800, which is an astonishing situation. This season's lamb prices are down by £9 a head, gross margins will be down by 30 per cent., and I calculate that last year's average income on upland sheep farms was the equivalent of £2.70 an hour for a 39-hour week. Hon. Members should compare that with the £3.60 an hour paid as the national minimum wage.
The sheep industry has sustained severe losses over the past two years and it cannot sustain any more. I am afraid that the exodus from the countryside is about to start in a

big way. I have talked to young people in my area and I believe that they will leave the land in substantial numbers. I am sure that that is not what the House wants, but I believe that it will happen unless a great deal of emergency action is taken. Problems with the euro and with exchange rates have not helped, but I believe that we should join the euro as soon as it is practicable to do so. I call on the House to take action now and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will ensure that a cull ewe disposal scheme is introduced to bring at least some relief to that hard-pressed sector of the sheep industry.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the chronic shortage of general practitioners in my constituency, which is causing great concern. I raised the matter about 18 months ago in a Wednesday morning debate, when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury was a Health Minister.
I shall not bore the House by going through a rigmarole on statistics. Suffice it to say that the Sunderland health authority area is estimated to be short of 30 GPs, which puts us above the national average for patients per GP: there are about 2,250 patients per GP in Sunderland against the national average of about 1,900. That local problem stands out because, paradoxically, it exists in a region that enjoys a ratio of GPs to patients that is higher than the United Kingdom average.
I have to give full credit where it is due: my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health, and his predecessor, who have been sincere and sympathetic, have attempted to introduce initiatives to ease the problem. I also give credit to Sunderland health authority, which is in the somewhat invidious position of trying to improve a situation over which it has little statutory control.
The nub of the matter lies within GP practices. I have spent many hours discussing this issue with various colleagues and I should place on record the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) have also been closely involved. They have done what they can and, although they may not use my words and expressions, they generally agree with the thrust of my remarks.
When I looked into this problem, I found that it has been long standing and that it should have been foreseen. In many ways, it is a demographic problem because my area has more than its fair share of GPs aged over 50. I am grateful to the Northern and Yorkshire regional office of the national health service executive for providing me with statistics showing that of all the health authorities in the region, only Sunderland has a preponderance of doctors over that age. Although the majority of doctors in every other health authority are under 40, two thirds of general practitioners in Sunderland are over 50. That situation has probably come about because of a historical accident, but the problem needs to be tackled and no matter what is done at present that will still be the position.
I am putting down a marker because I do not want someone to say in 20 years that no one noticed these problems. They are with us now and unless they are dealt with vigorously, they will return with a vengeance,


whatever we do to provide short-term alleviation. No matter how much good will is shown by the Department of Health, the Sunderland health authority and the regional health authorities, they are dealing with a flawed situation and that flaw lies within the present system of GP practices.
For example, a practice of three GPs might look after 6,000 people, which is extremely reasonable considering that one GP in my area looks after 4,000 people. If one GP retired and was not immediately replaced, even though efforts were made to replace him, two GPs would be left to look after those 6,000 people.
One of the problems is that the system of payment in GP practices is little better than that for piecework: the more patients a doctor has, the more he is remunerated. Once GPs have become used to a much higher rate of remuneration, they have a disincentive to recruit partners. The system is fundamentally flawed and has been since the NHS was founded. Moreover, it is having a deleterious effect in Sunderland. Although my area is 30 GPs short, only four practices have placed advertisements to try to find partners. One would assume that if practices are not placing advertisements, they are not trying to improve the situation.
The answer to the problem is salaried status for GPs. I know that the British Medical Association is not in favour of that and has fought against it since the inception of the NHS, but recent research shows that 93 per cent, of young GPs would prefer to be salaried workers rather than small business men running their own practice or partners in a practice. We are also considering the possibility of expanding the local university's medical service so that while young GPs are being trained within the university they can give some of their time to assist GPs in the area.
Unless the primary care sector is thriving and vigorous, the excellent initiatives that the Government are carrying out, such as health action zones, are bound to be blighted and may fail. As recently as last week, I met my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I know that he is doing all that he can. However, we now face almost three months in which Parliament will not sit and I dread to think what the position may be when we return because, despite all the efforts, the problem is getting worse.
This is a matter not merely for the Government, but for all hon. Members. Are we satisfied that the current system of GP practices is working? I am not and I wish to lay down that marker. I urge the Government to put much more emphasis on trying to change the system so that, eventually, all GPs are salaried. It may be argued that that will cost more, but so be it. The current system is unsatisfactory. It cannot be only my constituency that has a shortage of GPs. The problem is inherent.
I give full credit to the Government, who are trying to alleviate the problem by getting more GPs on to the books, but ultimately, we must have a system in which, if there is a shortage in an area, both the health authority and the Department of Health can put it right. That does not seem to be the case. We are floundering around trying to see what can be done to alleviate the problem, instead of considering a solution which, in the long term, would prevent such a problem from arising.
I have spent just about long enough saying what I have to say. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to raise this matter because it is causing a lot of concern in my constituency. Next Thursday, I have been asked to address Age Concern specifically on this matter and I am not particularly looking forward to it. I therefore ask the Minister and all hon. Members present to consider this matter. The system has been in place for 50 years and it is not working to the satisfaction of all those who want to benefit from the service, particularly in my constituency.
Despite what the BMA may think—no doubt I shall be public enemy number one, given what I have to say—the majority of young doctors do not want to be entrepreneurs and business men; they want to carry on their profession as salaried workers and let the Government deal with the administration and the executive functions.

Mr. David Atkinson: It is absolutely imperative that the House does not rise before debating fully the threat posed to public services, the private sector and people's normal daily lives by what is misleadingly called the "millennium bug"—the time bomb that is ticking away and which will affect the performance of the date-related computer systems on which we all rely. No one can guarantee that that threat will be avoided and yet, despite what the Government may claim, most people totally underestimate or under-realise it. As a result, they will not be prepared.
Last month, the Government distributed a booklet entitled "Facts not Fiction" in the national Sunday press. I regret to say, however, that it was a missed opportunity adequately to warn and inform people. The Government have also introduced quarterly reports to Parliament, which are now to become monthly reports as the deadline draws near. I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the formidable role that she has played as the principal Minister responsible. I hope that she will be allowed to continue in that role for the rest of the year, because she is aware of the seriousness of the problem and no one new to the job would have the time to get to grips with it or have a greater influence on it.
Many experts now say that it is already too late to do much more than what has already been done to respond to the problem. Reports that are now appearing make it clear that there will be problems. Although they will be much worse elsewhere in the world—this country is better prepared than most—as we cannot isolate ourselves from them, we will import other countries' problems as well.
The House has never had a full-scale debate on this issue. Apart from Government statements, Hansard shows that the Government have responded only to personal initiatives or Back-Bench Members of Parliament. Those include my original question to the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in 1995 on the issue; my Adjournment debate the following year; another Adjournment debate on the consequences for defence earlier this year; my proposed amendments to the Data Protection Act 1998; my three private Member's Bills on the issue; the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) earlier this year; and replies to questions by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Why has there been no general debate on the threat? Why has there been no debate on the Science and Technology Committee's report entitled "The Year 2000:


Computer Compliance", which it published in April last year? What have the Government got to hide? Is it because they lost six crucial months when they came into office in May 1997, during which they shelved—or effectively sacked—the awareness campaign of the previous Government, TaskForce 2000, before eventually replacing it with Action 2000, which became fully operational only last year? I fear that, with hindsight, those six lost months will mean that this country is no longer the best prepared for avoiding problems.
That also explains the recent Cap Gemini report that Britain has slipped from second to eighth place in the millennium readiness stakes, as other European countries accelerate their efforts. I am already convinced that the failure of both the previous Government and the present one to support my three Bills on this unique issue will be exposed as missed opportunities, which, in hindsight, they were badly advised to ignore.
Nowhere is that demonstrated better than in last weekend's report about the eight companies that the Financial Services Authority refuses to name, despite the demands of Action 2000, in which investors' money is at risk because the companies are rated as "red" in the latest report by the National Infrastructure Forum. That information will get out sooner or later—almost certainly sooner, because of inevitable leaks in response to increasing rumour and speculation about who they are. There is a clear duty of immediate exposure so that appropriate action can be taken, not least by those whose investments may be at risk. I hope that the Minister will agree that it is immoral and dishonest to deny disclosure now. I look forward to his response.
All that and so much more could have been avoided if my first private Member's Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, had been allowed to complete its stages in the run-up to the last general election. The Bill would have required company directors to disclose the millennium compliance of their computer systems in their annual reports to shareholders. We would, by now, have had two years of annual reports providing for total transparency in law of every company's millennium readiness. If action was not being taken, shareholders would have wanted to know why and would have demanded that something be done. It was a simple solution to a unique situation and it would have been effective in safeguarding this country's private business sector.
The present Government cannot blame the previous Government for a lack of foresight in not perceiving the opportunity of my Bill, because they also refused to support it when I brought it back in its amended form after the last general election.
There is no reference to that risk to shareholders in the Government's booklet "Facts not Fiction". Under the section headed "Personal Finance", we are told that
your money is as safe as it has always been".
It contains no cautionary warnings to reflect other recent reports.
In February last year, I warned the Prime Minister at Question Time about the high risk of undertaking the two biggest ever information technology projects—millennium compliance and euro conversion—at the same time. Last Sunday's The Mail on Sunday warned that European banks and financial institutions will not be

millennium compliant in time, which will affect the euro. Interest rates will rise. That and other consequences will have an impact on this country.
The Government could have delayed proceeding with other IT projects so as to give priority to the overwhelming and essential need to be millennium compliant. The Passport Agency struggled to issue thousands of passports because of its inability to cope with the millennium bug and the new requirement for children to carry their own passports.
In May, The Sunday Telegraph warned that some of Europe's busiest airports and air traffic control centres have fallen seriously behind in their plans to deal with the millennium bug. They include Paris, Rome, Madrid and Luton. The major power failures at Heathrow at the start of this May's bank holiday weekend showed that people's plans can be disrupted no matter who they are. Even Posh and Becks had to abandon plans to fly to Nice. That experience will be nothing compared with the consequences of computer failure. How many people are aware that the channel tunnel will be closed to the public at the millennium to prevent a potential disaster caused by the Y2K bug?
On 1 June, the Daily Mail reported that the Home Office had issued leaflets to every local authority "predicting Millennium night chaos" and warning of
medical, public order and criminal disasters on a grand scale.
My local authority of Bournemouth, which is one of our major tourist resorts and had hoped to organise millennium night events, has no insurance cover for public liability and is still waiting to hear from the Treasury whether the Bellwin scheme for emergency financial assistance to local authorities would apply. How many other local authorities and voluntary organisations are abandoning their millennium plans because of the threat of the millennium bug?
Are the Government confident that all their millennium plans are adequately covered for public liability? That may explain the report on Operation Surety in The Sunday Times last weekend. The Special Air Services and other special services are shortly to be deployed to protect key government sites and civilian installations, such as banks, airports and power stations, and to support emergency services. Will the Minister confirm the existence of Operation Surety?
Those threats and risks, as well as many more, would have been dramatically reduced if the Government had had the good sense to support my two other private Member's Bills on this issue. The Millennium Conformity Bill, which I introduced last year, would have required all computer systems and the services they provide to recognise 2000 as defined by the British Standards Institution's code of millennium conformity. I shall again move the Second Reading of my Computer Millennium Non-Compliance (Contingency Plans) Bill this Friday.
Unfortunately, the Government have shown that they do not fully appreciate either the problem or the threat, and continue to rely on voluntary persuasion of the need to take the necessary action. They have not grasped the fact that, no matter how well any organisation is prepared, it can take just one glitch, one overlooked, non-compliant date in any of its own programmes or those in the chain with which it is linked for all of them to be affected. It is all or nothing. It is impossible to conclude that there will


not be problems. That warning is blatantly missing in the Government's booklet to inform the public, entitled "Facts not Fiction".
At the very least, the commendably realistic warning of the Leader of the House that there are no guarantees that material disruption of public services will be avoided should have been quoted in the booklet. There is no guarantee that electric lights will come on, domestic gas will flow, water taps will run, telephones will operate and food, petrol and cash will not run out.
If the House is not fully to debate this problem, will the Minister tell us how he intends to report the new monthly reports to the House during the summer recess? Should those reports disclose that targets will be missed, and given that slippage has been a common feature of past reports, will the recess be suspended so that a proper statement can be debated? When the House returns in late October, there will be insufficient time to take meaningful action—fewer than 50 working days. Will the Government issue further warnings to the public that they should be prepared for problems, and guidelines on what sensible precautions to take? The Government have not done enough to prepare this country for what could happen early next year. They have just 165 days left in which to do so.

Mr. John Grogan: Soon after the House goes into recess, the world will celebrate Yorkshire day on 1 August. Perhaps Yorkshire day has not yet reached the scale of Burns night or American independence day, or even the celebrations to mark the Queen's birthday. Nevertheless, we shall be doing our best in Yorkshire. This year, it will have a particular resonance because on 1 August, Yorkshire will be playing in its first one-day cricket final at Lords for more than 12 years.
Yorkshire people are known the world over for their generosity, outward-going nature and sheer joie de vivre. A campaign was started this year for a Yorkshire parliament. It rightly drew attention to the strong Yorkshire identity, but it was probably wrong to illustrate that identity by reference to the trio of Freddie Trueman, Geoff Boycott and Michael Parkinson. A more modern trio would have been Darren Gough, Mel B from the Spice Girls and Sean Bean, the actor from South Yorkshire. However, in the absence of a Yorkshire regional assembly or parliament, I shall touch on three areas of particular concern to the Yorkshire economy.
The Yorkshire economy is generally booming at the moment. Unemployment is low—it is falling in my constituency—and interest rates are low, but there are particular concerns in individual sectors. Many people in Yorkshire will start Yorkshire day, which falls on a Sunday this year, by having their only cooked breakfast of the week. They will have time to do that, and will no doubt have bacon and eggs or a bacon sandwich. I hope that, as they do so, they will reflect on the dire plight of many pig farmers. We heard about sheep farmers earlier, but many pig farmers in Yorkshire and elsewhere are in difficulty.
The latest statistics from Eurostat show a dramatic fall in production in the pig sector, which will get worse over the summer. In the third quarter of the year,

pig production is predicted to fall by 13.7 per cent., and gross indigenous pig production will fall in the fourth quarter by as much as 20 per cent. Those figures are truly alarming.
Part of the explanation for that fall is the drop in pig demand throughout the European Union. As has often been said in the House, British pig producers labour under an unfair competitive disadvantage, because of the welfare measures that they have properly put in place under pressure from retailers, the Government and consumers. Tethers, sow stalls and, most importantly, bonemeal have been banned. Those measures are not in place in all European Union countries, although some of them will be by 2004. Horror stories are emerging from some of our European Union competitors. Even Euro-enthusiasts such as I have a good degree of Euro-scepticism about the conditions that pertain in some of our competitor countries.
According to Reuters, a French Government inquiry, which produced a report, found factory waste in animal feed. Reuters said:
Residue from toilets, septic tanks and sludge from waste treatment factories are routinely used in the making of European animal feed … Initial findings show that certain types of meal destined to feed pigs, poultry and fish, have not been properly treated in the view of this analysis … In one case, matter ending up as feed ingredients for pigs and poultry included untreated byproducts from the production of gelatine from pig and cow skins".
I urge Ministers, over the summer, to redouble their efforts in the European Union. I urge them to insist that such practices end, to insist that animal welfare standards are brought up to scratch in our competitor countries sooner than 2004, and to do everything possible to encourage supermarkets and local authorities robustly to buy pigmeat safely. Currently, that will mean buying British in most instances.
Another industry that has long been associated with Yorkshire—and, over the last couple of decades, with my constituency in particular—is the coal industry. There is now some recognition in the Yorkshire coalfields that the Government have done a good job in righting wrongs that have existed in the past, particularly in giving justice to miners suffering from industrial diseases by ensuring that they receive proper compensation. They have also created a window in the energy market in order to provide a more diverse energy supply. Coal now has a chance: there is a more level playing field.
I hope that, over the summer, Ministers will consider an Environment Agency report on the control of pollution from existing oil and coal-fired power stations. Our international obligations demand that we cut 1980 levels of sulphur dioxide emissions by 80 per cent, by 2010. The Environment Agency suggests that we go further, and cut them by 87 per cent, by 2005. There is some disquiet in the Yorkshire coalfields about the idea of our proceeding faster than our international obligations demand. It is also felt that the report should be closely associated with the Government's energy review, and their review of the electricity pool. "Joined-up government" is, of course, a cliche, but it really applies in this context.
Following the Government's energy review, the Drax power station in my constituency—the biggest coal-fired power station in Europe—is to be disposed of by National Power. When that happens, National Power, which is still a dominant force in the industry, will no longer have a flue gas desulphurisation plant as part of its portfolio. It strikes


me as sensible for Eggborough, National Power's biggest power station, to be fitted with such a plant, and I urge the Environment Agency and the Government to encourage such a development. If all three major power stations in the Aire valley, Drax, Ferrybridge—which is being disposed of by PowerGen, and will have a flue gas desulphurisation plant—and Eggborough are so equipped, for the first time, it will do wonders for the local environment.
Ultimately, however, flue gas desulphurisation plants give the coalfields only a medium-term future. If we are serious about giving them a longer-term future, we must encourage clean-coal technology, in which this country leads the world, in the same way as we encourage the renewable sector. The coal industry is expanding internationally, especially in China, and we have a tremendous export market. The Government have said that they will not decide whether we should have a demonstration clean-coal plant for three years; I think that that is too long for us to wait.
I am aware of the constraints of time. Perhaps Front-Bench Members would consider imposing a 10-minute limit on Back Benchers' speeches in future debates. I am a minute or two short of 10 minutes.
Finally, let me say something about Yorkshire's burgeoning restaurant sector. Yorkshire is now one of the gastronomic capitals of Britain: for example, Hazelwood Castle in my constituency is a superb restaurant. Perhaps the Government will consider introducing a small measure early in the new Session. I believe that they are already committed to a reform of the licensing laws following the work of the better regulation task force. Currently, if restaurants in Leeds, Sheffield, York and Selby want to stay open after midnight, they must provide live music and entertainment: they must make more noise in order to stay open. That is nonsense. I hope that, by Yorkshire day next year, people will be able to enjoy a meal in a restaurant late at night without being subjected to incessant noise.

Mr. Roger Gale: I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of our parliamentary democracy: the confidentiality of the constituency case work of Members of Parliament.
I believe that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who were once a Back Bencher, and all of us regard our constituency case work as sacrosanct. It is as confidential, as privileged and as closely guarded as the confessional, as correspondence with lawyers and as matters relating to doctors. We have always regarded it as such, and I was astonished to discover the other day that, in fact, Parliament affords no protection whatever to it.
In late May, a representative of Messrs Baker Tilly, a trustee in bankruptcy, called at the offices of Mr. Jonathan Aitken and removed nine boxes of private papers. Those private papers included correspondence with constituents and with ministerial and Government colleagues, correspondence with religious and spiritual leaders, and correspondence with current and former heads of state. Baker Tilly's representative gave Mr. Aitken an undertaking that
precautions would be taken to protect the confidentiality
of the papers, and that the files
would be kept in a locked cupboard at Baker Tilly.

Mr. Aitken was also assured that they would be taken only for inspection, and that, once they had been examined and checked for financial details, they would be returned. On that basis, Mr. Aitken not only agreed for the files to be taken, but helped to load them into Baker Tilly's van.
Mr. Aitken was horrified to discover that, within days, the trustee in bankruptcy had sought the opinion of valuers, Messrs Gorringes, on the value of the papers at sale. The valuers suggested that they could be sold for a considerable sum. The trustee stated:
This sum will be realised should I be able to sell the correspondence without any restriction to the ultimate purchaser".
Gorringes's head of valuation, Mr. Gilham, said on 14 June:
We believe however that these sensitive files are of value and that the market lies in the publishing arena. On the basis of the limited research we have been able to undertake we have reason to believe that if the nine boxes"—
all nine boxes—
were to be offered to newspapers and publishers a six figure sum would be easily attainable".
Last weekend, The Sunday Times carried an article about the matter. As a result, Mr. Aitken's former constituents in South Thanet have been caused considerable distress. The papers contain material of a highly sensitive and highly personal nature. Moreover, when I met Mr. Aitken at his request to discuss the matter, and agreed to raise it in the House, he informed me that, in another incarnation as a sidesman at St. Margaret's church, Westminster—which is effectively the chapel of the House of Commons—he had written on numerous occasions to Canon Donald Gray, the former Speaker's Chaplain, and had issued special requests on behalf of colleagues on both sides of the House who were in distress, and were suffering marital difficulties. There were requests such as, "So-and-so's son is a drug addict: please can we remember him in our prayers?". Those, too, were matters of a highly sensitive, highly personal nature, which were never supposed to be disclosed in any public way, and should not have been so disclosed.
Some of these matters are before the court, and I do not wish to intrude on the privilege of the courts to determine matters that are properly in their domain. However, at 8.30 this morning, I met the trustee in bankruptcy in the House, and I am pleased to be able to reassure hon. Members that I have now received an agreement in writing. It states:
None of Mr. Aitken's correspondence with constituents has been or will be copied and nor will it be offered for sale. These papers will be returned to Mr. Aitken's solicitors forthwith.
No correspondence between Mr. Aitken and parliamentary colleagues has been or will be copied, nor at any time offered for sale unless the court so orders.
No correspondence between Mr. Aitken and the Speakers Chaplain, Canon Donald Gray have been or will be copied or at any time offered for sale. These papers will be returned, also, to Mr. Aitken's solicitors forthwith except those papers which relate to Mr. Aitken's financial affairs.
Papers that may be regarded as Government Papers covered under the 'Thirty Year Rule' have not been and will not be copied or offered for sale. They will be held subject to the undertaking already given to the Treasury Solicitor.
The remaining papers—the remaining matters—will be dealt with in court. It would be improper of me to seek to deal with them.
My point in raising the matter and in placing it on the record is that, happily, as a result of considerable pressure being brought to bear, not least by the thought that the matter would be raised in the House this morning, the issue has, so far as the constituents of South Thanet are concerned, been put to bed. I accept entirely the undertaking that the trustee in bankruptcy, Mr. Colin Haig, gave me this morning. It is in writing. I have no reason to question his word, but there is a principle that must be considered during the recess so that some progress can be made in Parliament in the autumn. I firmly believe that, in the light of those events, which I do not believe many Members began to understand were possible, the two Front-Bench teams, the Cabinet Office and, dare I say it, the Speaker's Clerks and Office need to review the position.
It is an appalling situation. I should make the following point: those who know the man will understand why he is so concerned. Jonathan Aitken's first concern was for his former South Thanet constituents. He was desperately disturbed to learn that there was a possibility of their private correspondence being made public. He was equally concerned at the thought that colleagues' private matters that had been discussed with the Speaker's Chaplain could have been made public.
It is essential that we look again at the whole system of parliamentary privilege to ensure that, at no time—hon. Members on either side of the House might find themselves facing bankruptcy—shall any colleagues' private constituency papers be seized by a trustee in bankruptcy, or offered for sale.

Mr. Peter Bradley: I should like to raise some important issues before the summer recess—issues that some Conservative Members may not wish to hear, but that need to be raised none the less.
In recent weeks, there has been much interest in and speculation about Mr. Michael Ashcroft. Many allegations have been made. Many revelations have appeared in the daily papers about his status as a foreign funder of the Conservative party, about his business dealings and about his relationship with the previous Government. Throughout it all, the Leader of the Opposition has stood by Mr. Ashcroft and said that he has no case to answer. Mr. Ashcroft has conceded that his connections with the Conservative party are causing it damage, but he still resolutely refuses to go.
May I remind the House who Michael Ashcroft is? He is a United Kingdom tax exile. His principal residence is in the United States of America. His principal business interests lie in Belize. He funds the Government party there—the People's United party, which I understand has recently sought advice on joining the Socialist International. He is Belize's ambassador to the United Nations. He is a citizen of Belize; he is also a citizen of the Turks and Caicos Islands. As far as I know, he is a citizen of other places, too. All those credentials are considered by the Leader of the Opposition to qualify him for his other job: treasurer of the United Kingdom's Conservative party.
Mr. Ashcrof is a man about whom our man in Belize warned the Foreign Office: there was, he said, a
shadow over his reputation that ought not to be ignored"—
of course, that shadow has been ignored by the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Ashcroft is a man whose business interests, according to a report by Rodney Gallagher, which was sponsored by the Foreign Office as part of its aid to Belize, were creating
a growing sense of disquiet
in Belize—a sense of disquiet clearly not shared by the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Ashcroft is a man whom our former high commissioner in Belize, Mr. David Mackilligin, described last week as
an object of suspicion to governments in the area, especially the Americans who have to cope with constant war against drug-runners and money-launderers".
He went on to write, in a letter which appeared in The Times:
he cannot escape responsibility for establishing a system that makes Belize a much more tempting target for drug-runners than it would be and for resisting efforts to regulate it properly in order presumably to maximise his company's profit.
That is, apparently, what motivates Mr. Michael Ashcroft—the bottom line. It is not political conviction; I have mentioned that he funds not only the Conservative party but the People's United party in Belize. It is not personal loyalty. It is not public interest, but the ruthless pursuit of the bottom line. He has made money out of flags of convenience in Belize, which is known to have one of the worst safety records in the world. According to The Independent this morning, he has sold passports for profit. According to our Foreign Office diplomats, he is prepared to "stir up trouble" for Britain in the Turks and Caicos Islands if he does not get his way.
In no fewer than 10 of the 40-odd votes in the United Nations since he has been Belize's ambassador there, Mr. Ashcroft has voted against the United Kingdom. As I have said, he has opened the door in Belize to money laundering and drug trafficking through his interference in the regulation of its financial sector. The linking of Michael Ashcroft to the drugs trade is the most alarming aspect.
On Sunday, Mr. Ashcroft told the BBC that, although he was aware of one investigation undertaken by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States, he believed that it had concluded in 1992 and that its principal interest was Belize, not him. To be caught up in one drugs investigation may be just bad luck—a big man in a small place at the wrong time—but there is more.
I have seen documents, which have also been seen by The Times— files of the DEA, the FBI and the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. All refer to Michael Ashcroft and to his business interests. I have no reason to believe that they are forgeries. They are taken from the files of United States investigation, intelligence and enforcement agencies. They make disturbing reading.
In 1989, Mr. Ashcroft's name was linked to a DEA drug-trafficking inquiry that stretched across Europe, the United States and Canada, and involved the son of Jean Baptiste Andreani, who was immortalised, if that is the right word, in "The French Connection." In 1992, a Thomas Ricke was arrested and jailed for laundering


money, gained from organised crime, through Michael Ashcroft's Belize bank. In 1993, the DEA conducted an investigation of Belize-linked businesses, half of which were connected to Michael Ashcroft—12 of the 25-odd that it investigated had links with Michael Ashcroft.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bradley: No. Time is pressing. Other hon. Members want to speak.
In 1994, a DEA file reported observing Michael Ashcroft taking a flight from the United States to the Caribbean. It referred to
possible air smuggling/money laundering activities under way by Michael Ashcroft".
It also reported that the plane was owned and piloted by two suspected drug traffickers.
In 1996, Mr. Ashcroft was the subject of another investigation. In 1997, a man arrested in Holland on suspicion of drugs offences gave as his address the same address in Belize as Mr. Ashcroft's principal company, Belize Holdings. Those are serious matters.
I do not claim that Michael Ashcroft is guilty of any offence. I simply do not know, but nor does the Leader of the Opposition. However, he above all should be concerned about these allegations. The drip, drip, drip of disclosures is becoming a torrent that threatens to engulf the Conservative party. It is extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition has taken no action about it. After all, it was he who said just last year:
We are not going to have in the future any of the kind of controversies that have dogged us in the past over funding".
He said it, but did he believe it and did he mean it?
If Michael Ashcroft were just another business man, we would take little interest in him, but he wants to play a role in British public life, and that gives us a legitimate interest in his affairs. That is why the Leader of the Opposition must refer him to the ethics and integrity committee that he established recently. That is why he should relieve him of his post as treasurer of the Conservative party, and why he should consider returning to him the donations that he has made in recent years.
Michael Ashcroft says that he will not go. Only one man can decide his fate—the man who says that he runs the Conservative party—but does he dare? Does he have the courage or even the authority to sack him, and can he afford to, given that Michael Ashcroft is the man who owns the Conservative party?
The Conservative party says that sleaze is a thing of the past, but it is running its campaign in Eddisbury on money from Belize, and tomorrow it will ask the people in that constituency for their trust. Does the Leader of the Opposition want it said that Michael Ashcroft is the man who defines the Conservative party? This is a real test of his qualities of leadership. He has a big decision to make.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I shall preface my remarks by congratulating those hon. Members who have taken the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to highlight the problems of the sheep and pig industries. Before I move on to my own theme, however, I wish to

state how much I deplore the comments of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley).
The House will understand that what the hon. Gentleman said was covered by parliamentary privilege, but I did not hear him cite any specific charges that had been brought against Mr. Ashcroft. I remind the House of the very important principle and tenet in British law that a man is innocent until proved otherwise. The hon. Gentleman questioned the motives and motivation of Mr. Ashcroft, but I hope that I shall not be out of order in questioning the hon. Gentleman's motives. He spent 10 minutes giving us a lot of innuendo but, as far as I know, he was unable to substantiate that with any facts.
On a more pleasant note, I wish to say that, in my opinion, the British countryside looks more beautiful than it has ever done at this time of year, probably due to the wet spring that we had. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have an interest in trees, and you will appreciate that the beauty of the British countryside is largely due to the tree cover that it enjoys. I want to speak specifically about commercial forestry.
Last year, the Government issued their forestry strategy for England, which was largely aspirational and entirely platitudinous. As far as commercial forestry was concerned, it was eminently worthy but, in practical terms, worthless. England, together with Ulster and Eire, is bottom of the European league for tree coverage. In England, 8 per cent, of the land mass is covered in trees. In Eire the figure is 7 per cent., and in Ulster 6 per cent. In contrast, the overall figure for European Union land mass coverage is 36 per cent. Taking the United Kingdom as a whole, the comparable figure is 10 per cent., but that includes large areas of scrub oak, the third most common species after spruce and pine.
I have some questions for the Government. Are they satisfied with the present situation and the current downward trend in new planting? What, if anything, are they prepared to do about the matter, and how will they go about it? At present, the forestry industry is experiencing unprecedented difficulties. First, it suffers from red tape, particularly that associated with felling controls. Secondly, it suffers from cheap imports—I remind the House that labour costs in Latvia, for example, are a quarter of those in the United Kingdom. Moreover, road fuel prices in Latvia are only a third of those in this country. Thirdly, crippling vehicle excise and road fuel duties have a much more significant effect on forestry than on industries whose loads are less bulky and often much more valuable.
Haulage accounts for at least 25 per cent, of the delivered value of British-grown round timber. For obvious reasons, the scope for transferring the loads to the railways is limited. A lot of our forestry land is well removed from the rail-heads, and in any case loads have to be hauled by road to reach them.
A fourth problem facing the industry is the lack of any coherent long-term Government strategy sufficient to give the private sector long-term confidence. Forestry is, after all, a very long-term business. People who plant trees often do not live to see them come to maturity. Planting, therefore, is done with the long term in view.
Fifthly, the Forestry Commission is a rogue elephant when it comes to commercial decisions, and does not always operate under the same constraints as the


private sector. Many other difficulties face the industry, not least an ill-informed public who do not accept that trees are grown as a commercial crop and that trees, like humans, have a finite life.
A prosperous commercial forestry industry brings many economic benefits. First, there is an obvious benefit in the employment that it creates. The forestry industry is a major employer in rural areas. It is estimated that it employs 35,000 people in the United Kingdom, and that employment is permanent and year-round. That contrasts with the agriculture industry, where more of the labour tends to be under contract and on a seasonal basis. Moreover, the forestry industry is often situated in remote areas where there is no alternative employment.
In the past decade, the industry has invested no less than £1.8 billion in new saw milling and wood processing facilities, which now produce timber and wood products derived from British forests that are worth £2 billion per annum. That is a valuable contribution to our balance of payments. Our forests represent a store of value and are a very important strategic reserve.
The third benefit to be derived from a healthy forestry industry is to the environment. I have already mentioned how trees benefit the landscape, and most hon. Members will be aware of the beneficial effect that trees have on our atmosphere by absorbing surplus nitrogen and other impurities. Forestry is a sustainable and infinitely renewable source of raw material and fuel. Given that so many people are worried about the environment, a thriving forestry industry will ensure that there is life and work in our countryside, and will prevent its reduction into a decaying park.
I have several questions that the Government must answer. Do they acknowledge the economic, environmental and employment benefits of a thriving forestry industry? Do they accept that the portents for the future are alarming? The area approved for felling increased from 12,000 hectares in 1989 to 19,000 hectares in 1998, but the area planted in the same period fell from 37,000 hectares to 17,000 hectares. What action will the Government take to deal with the problems that I have described? They could remove at a stroke the burden of regulation and the punitive effect of the exorbitant 11.6 per cent, increase in road fuel duties.
Will the Government look again at the efficacy of their grant schemes in encouraging a vibrant forestry industry, and will they consider reintroducing tax reliefs such as existed before 1988? Now that the "polluter pays" principle is so well established, there is a strong case for giving relief to those who, far from polluting the atmosphere, do so much to clean it up. Or will the Government do nothing? Will they take the short-term view that foresters are an insignificant minority; that 35,000 jobs are neither here nor there; that our timber can all be sourced from abroad; that a living vibrant countryside is the rhetoric, not the reality, of Labour in office?
I move that the House does not adjourn until a Minister has come to the Dispatch Box to state unequivocally that wood is good, and what the Government will do positively to encourage this generation to plant trees for the benefit and enjoyment of generations yet unborn.

12 noon

Ms Jenny Jones: In January this year, a constituent of mine, while travelling home to Wolverhampton via Birmingham international airport, was detained by French immigration officials at Charles de Gaulle airport. They apparently did not like the look of his passport and thought that it may have been forged. That turned out not to be true. My constituent is a British citizen and his passport was okay, but it took the best part of 36 hours to convince the French officials and, during that time, my constituent underwent what can only be described as an extremely unpleasant experience.
I have made a formal complaint to the French ambassador here in London and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about the way in which my constituent was treated. To give the French ambassador his due, he has taken my complaint seriously, and several months ago he asked for an investigation to be carried out by French immigration officials. I am awaiting the outcome of that report and I do not want to pre-empt it, so I shall not go into great detail about what happened to my constituent, but, because of his experience I wish to bring several points to the attention of the House and the Minister so that he can pass them on to the FCO and the Home Office.
First, despite repeated requests, my constituent was denied access to the British embassy in Paris. When I took that up with the Foreign Office I was told that, within the EU, and presumably any other country, immigration officials exercise their own discretion as to how they carry out their job. But it is a serious matter that a British citizen should be denied access to his own embassy. In this case, there was a practical reason for contacting the British embassy. Had it been involved earlier, the mistake could have been cleared up in a couple of hours, rather than the 36 that it took.
Secondly, France and Britain are meant to be partners within the EU. Intelligence and common sense should have reigned on this occasion and the French immigration officials should have contacted British immigration. Not only would the entire mess have been cleared up, but if my constituent had not been who he said he was and had been trying to enter the United Kingdom illegally, British immigration officials would have liked to have known about it. They would have liked the opportunity to interview him to discover how he got hold of his passport and how he was attempting to gain entrance to the United Kingdom.
Those of us who represent multicultural constituencies in Britain and deal with many immigration matters know that most illegal immigration into Britain is a result of organised international crime. Large amounts of money are exchanged. The only way to fight such international crime is by having cross-border co-operation. I am concerned that in this case that simply did not happen. I do not know how many other times such a situation has occurred, but that important message should go back to the FCO and the Home Office.
At the moment, Home Office Ministers are engaged in discussions at the Council of Ministers about improving cross-border co-operation between immigration authorities to deal with illegal immigration. Whatever they manage to agree on, it is crucial that immigration officers are allowed to talk to each other, first to try to combat illegal immigration, but also to try to prevent the extremely


unpleasant experience that my constituent underwent. Even if we are partners in the EU, a British citizen should not be put through what my constituent was put through.
I respectfully ask the Minister to convey my points to the FCO and the Home Office. Whatever the outcome of my complaint about the way in which my constituent was treated, real issues arise here with regard to a British citizen being denied access to his or her embassy when in trouble and needing help. In this case, when the British embassy did intervene, the matter was cleared up. If we are to have co-operation between immigration officers across the EU—I strongly recommend that; it is needed—it should be at a level where it is workable and practical, so that we can get to grips with internationally organised illegal immigration.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has demonstrated that it is possible to raise an important case concisely and coherently. I am grateful to her for sitting down when she did, and I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to her for the example that she has set. Would that others might follow it more often.
One of the sad things about today's debate—I have said in the past that this is a useful exercise and I have replied to these debates for the past two years or more—is that so many hon. Members have not been able to take part, a number of whom have sat throughout the debate. I feel especially deprived that I have not heard my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess). I was desperate to know the latest position of the Palace theatre, and to hear the many other things with which he would doubtless have entertained us. The hon. Lady's case had echoes of one that he raised during the Whitsun Adjournment debate.
I ask the Minister and the Government business managers to consider the matter carefully. Either we should go on until 2 o'clock, as I have commended to the House before, or Madam Speaker should be asked if she would be kind enough to impose a 10-minute limit on all speeches.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) is not in his place, and that is rather unfortunate for such a senior hon. Member. He took half an hour of our time—slightly more—to outline an important case. No one could for a moment dispute the importance of what he spoke of, and he used parliamentary privilege entirely properly to raise those points. It is a pity that he is not here to listen to my response. I hope that he will be here in time to hear the Minister's response. He raised issues of alleged corruption in strong language, taking a great deal of time to do so, thus preventing a number of other hon. Members from raising their constituency cases.
This has been a serious debate. Privilege has been used on one or two occasions. It was used entirely properly by the right hon. Member for Gorton, but it was not used as properly by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley). As my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) said, the time-honoured principle of English law is that a man or woman is innocent until proved guilty. We had not a single shred of evidence from the hon. Gentleman. Newspaper reports were quoted and we had innuendo aplenty, but there was no substance in the allegations.
I know my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition well enough to know that any allegation of real substance would be taken most seriously by him, but we have not had that. It is a pity that the privilege of the House should be used to smear—that is what was done this morning—not to bring out facts, as the right hon. Member for Gorton sought to do. He quoted chapter and verse when he did so. I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is now in his place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) discussed the closure of Dunsfold and its effects on two exceptionally important aircraft and the skills and viability of a whole community. I hope that Mr. John Weston will listen carefully to her.
The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) was right to talk about aircraft noise. We then heard my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) discuss bed-blocking, mobile telephone masts and the Great Western Railway. I offer my hon. Friend advance congratulations on his birthday tomorrow; perhaps it entitled him to make an omnibus speech. National health resources can be put at risk by bed-blocking, and Ministers should take careful account of what my hon. Friend said. I was horrified—we all were—by his graphic account of stewed brains. Those who use mobile phones regularly should perhaps take a break during the recess. I entirely favour the serving of English wine on English trains—some of it is splendid—but I expect French wine on a French train.
The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talked of Northern Ireland, raising two disturbing cases—Stobie and Nelson. Everything he said emphasised the reasons for concern throughout the country at the possible breach of the anonymity rule in the Bloody Sunday inquiry. Those who fear that certain people may be identified do not pour scorn on the inquiry, but merely underline the principle, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke eloquently of the sheep industry, of which he has deep personal knowledge. Anyone who represents a rural constituency will know that he did not exaggerate. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should heed most carefully what the hon. Gentleman said, and should also heed all that was said about the pig industry by the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan). Those vital sectors of our agriculture are in dire straits. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Yorkshire day and restaurants, and he may wish to know of a wonderful competition held in the restaurants of the House last week to demonstrate the versatility of pork. If such a competition were spread a little further abroad, we might have a more viable pig industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) spoke with force and passion, as he often has, about the millennium bug. The country is in his debt for the action that has been taken. Would that there had been more. The risks to which he referred are disturbing, and it is a pity that neither the previous Government nor the present have enacted his Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) discussed a matter of great importance to all Members of Parliament—the Aitken papers. We are in his debt for the assurances that he has gained from the trustee


in bankruptcy. He was right to draw our attention to a threat that may face us all. Papers possessed by Members of Parliament that contain confidential information about our constituents and others must never be able to be seized and sold. My hon. Friend appears to have averted a catastrophe in the case of the Aitken papers—Jonathan Aitken, incidentally, was a most diligent constituency Member, and his papers are voluminous—but my hon. Friend's success does not remove the general threat, and we should return to this matter in the autumn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow has great knowledge of and love for the countryside. He discussed the forestry industry—vital, even if it employs relatively few people—with knowledge and real feeling. The green and pleasant land about which my hon. Friend waxed so eloquent looks delightful and beautiful at present, but it depends on a properly managed forestry industry, and no Government should ever forget it.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) spoke interestingly about general practitioners. There are too few in his constituency, and too many of them are over 50. No doubt Ministers will address both issues in due course.
As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire has returned to the Chamber, I should tell him that we all welcomed his discussion of aircraft noise, which blights many communities, particularly in rural areas. It is not only big airfields that cause the problem.
As always, the debate has been wide ranging. As the right hon. Member for Gorton is now in his place, I shall repeat that he began with a speech which, although too long, was important. The exceptionally important matters that he raised need to be addressed. We have travelled from the deeply serious to the mildly frivolous. We are all reasonably exhausted and ready for a break that ought to include a holiday. I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and every other hon. Member a productive and enjoyable recess filled with plenty of constituency work but also a real family break.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I should reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) about the large number of Members who have not been able to speak today. By the time of next year's debate, we will have been able to experiment with means to allow hon. Members a greater chance to raise constituency issues, perhaps in Westminster Hall. Our task is to ensure that constituency issues are raised and pursued while the primacy of the Chamber is maintained. That would be a major step forward.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I should have liked to hear more from the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the Palace theatre. I could give chapter and verse on what has happened before, and I do not doubt that we shall hear of it again.

Mr. Paul Tyler: An unusual number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have been squeezed out of today's debate. Will the Minister convey

to his right hon. and hon. Friends constituency concerns and other matters brought to the House by those who were unable to speak?

Mr. Tipping: I shall explore the possibilities. Any hon. Member who feels seriously aggrieved can write to me, and I shall ensure that the correspondence goes to the right place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) got us off to a good start this morning. We need to look into the relationship between the Arrowcroft Group and United Utilities. It seems clear that Arrowcroft has been ignorant and arrogant, acting out of pride and prejudice but without sense and sensibility. The matter is before a public inquiry, and it would be unwise of me to comment further. My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) will continue to pursue the matter rigorously, whether they are new or old Labour.
The right hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) spoke movingly about the problems at Dunsfold, which affect both her constituents and the Harrier programme. I shall draw her comments to the attention of relevant Ministers. She is right to say that regional development agencies are on trial, and that Dunsfold provides an opportunity to demonstrate what can be done. We want action as well as talk. I reassure her that there will be discussions between British Aerospace and DARA on the way forward. However, Dunsfold is primarily a matter for British Aerospace. I wish the right hon. Lady well in her discussions with the company.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) spoke of East Midlands airport, which I know well. I must confess that, many years ago, I was a leading light in the privatisation of the airport; I am pleased about that, because privatisation has brought new investment and new jobs to the area. The key issue at the airport is for the company to talk closely with local people. It should try to trade off investment against the obvious environmental concerns that have been expressed in the area. My hon. Friend made a good point about local decision-making in respect of planning, but noted that, in effect, these were regional and national matters. There is a case for considering a regional and national framework in respect of matters that affect airports such as the East Midlands airport.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) raised several issues. I shall not pursue all of them. He is right to highlight the fact that a Berlin wall sometimes still exists between health authorities and local authority social services departments. That is a real problem; we need to do better. Measures are in train to try to break down that wall. Patients should be the central concern; people should not be passed around like parcels. Money saving should not be the motivating force.
I understand all too well the hon. Gentleman's comments on mobile phones. Research is being carried out into their effect on people's health, but, looking around the Palace of Westminster, I fear that the research will be too late for some of our colleagues, whose brains are already hardened.
The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey) spoke movingly and strongly of the problems of the sheep industry. In another context,


my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) also referred to farming. It is clear that the agriculture sector faces problems at present—prospects are difficult. However, there are matters that we can pursue. First, we should examine the role of supermarkets. Secondly, we must ensure that farmers work co-operatively, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire suggested—for example, through farmers' markets. It is important to promote British meat—British lamb and British beef—as having better quality; we have higher welfare standards. That will take us a long way forward.
I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the remarks of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire on the cull ewe disposal scheme. A wider issue for debate is the role of the rural economy; we need to make it clear that agriculture is not necessarily the essential ingredient for bringing new investment, new jobs and a new future to rural areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) raised the problem of lack of GPs in Sunderland. The health authority is beginning to address that problem, and will shortly hold a meeting with 16 practices in order to try to develop and improve services. The number of GPs now in training, and who will go into the NHS, has increased during the past two years. My hon. Friend referred to salaried doctors; that reminded me of the formation of the NHS—the voice of Nye Bevan. I know that my hon. Friend is a strong follower of that tradition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Selby spoke strongly and knowledgeably of the coal industry. Environmental constraints are a major threat to that industry. It is important that our energy policy is balanced and that we reduce emissions, but we must acknowledge that the gains made thus far were made on the back of the coal industry and of coal-field communities. Much more needs to be done to ensure that the cleaner plants, such as Drax and Ratcliffe on Soar, have an opportunity to compete—that is one of the matters that will be dealt with by the pool review.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) raised a constituency matter that merits wider consideration. My right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign Office, Baroness Symons, is looking into the matter; I already have an undertaking that the wider issues raised by my hon. Friend will be included in that consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about education in his constituency. He pointed out that there were improvements, but that there is a need to add value for post-16 school leavers and adult learners. That is a central thrust of Government policy. I am disappointed to learn of the difficulties in Hull. We are committed to do more; we are committed to lifelong learning. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments will be drawn to the attention of Ministers and to the Further Education Funding Council.
My hon. Friend was the first of this morning's speakers to refer to wider issues. The Patten review of the RUC is an important milestone for Northern Ireland. I shall draw

to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland my hon. Friend's other comments on Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) is to be congratulated on raising an issue that he has pursued vigorously for many years. I have no doubt that there will be problems when the millennium comes. There will be glitches and we should not run away from the problems; we must engage with them because time is running short. Although 80 per cent. of Government systems are all right now, there remains much to do. There is still slippage. However, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is cracking the whip hard. I believe that there will be no serious and severe disruption in the United Kingdom of the kind predicted by the pessimists.
As time passes, we shall need to consider the matter closely and give reassurances. We shall need to highlight the international situation. Work is already under way at the Foreign Office. I anticipate that, in early autumn, the Foreign Office and several other Governments will draw attention to countries about which there is concern. In October, I anticipate that guidance will be given by airlines as to airline and airport safety. Yes, there will be international problems, but it is important that there is no knock-on effect for the UK. I am not advocating an "I'm all right Jack" approach, but we are well placed vis-a-vis other countries.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Financial Services Agency and the eight rogue firms. At some point, a naming exercise will have to occur. At present, it would be wrong to do that. However, I expect that progress will be made, but, if that is not the case, disclosure will have to take place for the sake of the consumer.
The House owes a debt to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) for what he did today. I undertake to look into the wider issues in respect of constituency correspondence.
My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley) raised the Michael Ashcroft saga. It seems that damning allegations are being made. I cannot understand why the ethics and integrity committee of the Tory party have not investigated the matter.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) told me that wood was good. I agree with him. I shall walk in the woodland during the summer; woodland can lift the environment and lift the landscape. I look forward to being in Yorkshire on 1 August—enjoying the landscape, the woodland and the great gastronomic delights of north Yorkshire.
With that, I wish all hon. Members a good recess, a chance for refreshment with their families as well as a chance to pursue constituency work—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister's comments were splendid, but he was not absolutely exact in his timing. I am sure that his remarks were appreciated.
We now move on to the debate on publicly funded legal services and legal aid in Reading, East.

Legal Services (Reading, East)

Jane Griffiths: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important subject of publicly funded legal services in Reading. The title of the debate might give the impression that a parochial matter is being aired in the House today, but that is not so. I shall raise several important issues relating to the legal aid service in Reading that reflect a worrying national picture.
Parliament is considering a number of Government Bills relating to access to justice that will make important changes to the justice system. Consultations have been taking place and the public and interested bodies have been expressing their views. Therefore, it is all the more essential that existing bodies which provide access to legal services for those who need them, but who do not have the means to fund legal representation from their own income, operate in a manner that disburses public funds correctly, and that those bodies monitor rigorously the disbursement of those funds so that public money is not squandered, either on hopeless cases or on cases in which the full evidence is not in the possession of either of the parties concerned or their legal representatives.
I was pleased to learn from the Reading legal aid office that the targets for speedy processing of claims for legal aid assistance, which are set nationally, are being either met or exceeded by that office. Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions in an effort to establish where the Reading legal aid office fits into the national picture in terms of meeting those targets and processing my constituents' claims for legal aid assistance. From the answers provided by Ministers, it is clear that the Reading legal aid office is almost entirely typical of the country as a whole.
The figures show that Reading legal aid office had an average level of debt write-off of £637 in 1997–98, which is the last year for which figures are available. That is slightly less than the national average of £700 in 1997–98. The figures for the same year also show that, at £1.5 million per permanent employee, the cost of the legal aid service in Reading is less than the national average cost per permanent employee of £1.7 million. To attach a health warning to the latter figures, I should point out that the national figures include central support staff, whereas Reading's figures do not.
I am delighted that Reading's legal aid service appears to be performing well, but a darker picture has emerged after a meeting that I had with staff from that office. It is apparent that the need to meet or exceed national targets is putting pressure on staff at local legal aid offices to process claims without necessarily having the opportunity to put due checks and balances in place. The staff have targets for the number of claims that they have to process every day. They are checked constantly, and falling behind in achieving the targets results in a visit from a supervisor and possible disciplinary action.
I have no problem with the existence of targets to measure efficiency of processing—in fact, I believe that it is important to have targets to ensure that work is being carried out as efficiently as possible. However, that efficiency, those targets and the management systems must not apply solely to processing of claims, but should apply also to the accuracy of the claims that are entered.
To illustrate my argument, I shall refer to a constituent, whom I shall call Mr. B. He is in the unusual, but by no means unique, position of being in the throes of a marriage break-up, but still living in the same house as his spouse. Representations have been made seeking legal aid for his spouse, to the effect that she is responsible for various financial outgoings of the household. Because of their joint occupation of the household, Mr. B is in a position to have seen the claim that his spouse has submitted and learn that she has claimed for household expenditure that he actually pays. He can demonstrate that her financial situation is not as it has been represented.
That evidence is not being properly considered by the Reading legal aid office, despite the fact that its authenticity is at least worthy of respect. That is apparently because, were it to be considered, the excellent record of the Reading legal aid office in meeting its targets might be compromised. Mr. B, whose income would not in any circumstances entitle him to legal aid assistance, is left in the unfortunate position of knowing that public funds are being issued to a person who is not entitled to benefit from them, and that he could lose his home as a result.
Another constituent, Mr. L, has been in dispute for 10 years or more with his neighbour over a piece of land adjoining both their properties. Despite the fact that Mr. L's case and others like it are unlikely to achieve a satisfactory settlement through the courts, public funds have been disbursed over the years to the extent that the piece of land in dispute could have been purchased at the market value, donated to my constituent and an equivalent sum paid in compensation to his neighbour with the legal aid funds that have already been disbursed—but, of course, those funds have gone into the pockets of solicitors. As it is, the action continues, with no hope of success and with distress and worry caused to my constituent, whose legal representatives have been happy to receive legal aid certificates for a hopeless case. The legal aid service's remit allows it to refuse assistance for such cases, but in Mr. L's and other cases it has not done so.
Those examples, which are replicated in other cases that constituents have brought to my attention, demonstrate that there is some substance to the concerns of the staff at the Reading legal aid office. I am worried to learn that the Reading office is now taking on work from Manchester, Brighton and elsewhere. I understand that legal aid offices do that, if they have spare capacity. I hope that the systems for dealing with that work will ensure that there is proper scrutiny of the claims. The staff at the office have further concerns: paperwork is thrown away, so there is no record of the development of a case and no paper record should there have to be court action for recovery, making that recovery much harder; and auditing of claims by solicitors firms for legal aid under the delegated scheme again fails to provide proper scrutiny, as a result of the same pressures to pass claims.

Mr. Martin Salter: My hon. Friend is making a good argument and the people of Reading will be grateful to her. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, does she agree that there is an urgent need for that Committee to examine the roots of the suspicion


that the legal aid budget is being milked by unscrupulous solicitors, and that no proper checks or balances are in place?

Jane Griffiths: I agree that there is cause for concern about the activities of unscrupulous solicitors in several areas. I hope that the sort of rigorous scrutiny that I shall recommend will be carried out.
I do not ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor' s Department, to comment upon individual cases, as that would not be appropriate. However, I do ask him to reflect upon the fact that the Reading legal aid office is under such pressure to meet its targets for speedy processing of claims that claims are being routinely approved, without sufficient checking or scrutiny. Under the current system, it is easier to approve all claims that pass across an officer's desk than to check the reasonableness of the claims.
The professional staff at the Reading legal aid office would like to check all the claims that pass before them, but they are not given the opportunity to exercise their professionalism. Thus, year after year, huge sums of public money are disbursed—sums that almost match the budget of Reading council for the provision of all services to the people of Reading. Targets are met, but my constituents in Reading, East have less-than-adequate access to justice and solicitors get fat on the proceeds.
Money is walking out of the door of the Reading legal aid office, because management systems are set up to issue money as efficiently as possible and equal attention is not given to ensuring that the money is effectively spent. Solicitors in Reading, East are well aware that legal aid claims are not rigorously monitored. Who can blame them for claiming what they can, or for encouraging their clients to pursue cases that are either hopeless or misrepresented?
Access to justice is a basic human right. I hope that the Minister will take into account the fact that, whatever the situation in the Reading legal aid office may be, according to the Government's figures, it is not untypical of the national picture. Therefore, it may be true that, all over the country, the speedy processing of legal aid claims is taking precedence over good monitoring and scrutiny. I hope that that is not the case.
I should like to take advantage of the privilege that I have been granted in raising this important subject in the House today by asking the Minister whether he will ensure that the legal aid service in Reading, and others elsewhere in the country, will be obliged in future to undertake strict monitoring of financial disbursement and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence presented when legal aid is sought. My constituent Mr. B should be permitted to present evidence that may affect his adversary's entitlement to legal aid under our current system.
I know that our legal aid system will change in the future. I seek an assurance from the Minister that serious and rigorous scrutiny will be put in place so that those who seek help from publicly funded legal services and those who may have adversaries who do so can be confident that all possible evidence is taken into account and that public funds will be used to provide access to justice for those who need it.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) on her good fortune in securing a debate on this very important subject which, aside from the legislative proceedings, has not been debated in the House since the introduction of the Access to Justice Bill in the other place in December last year.
My hon. Friend has, typically, put her case articulately, cogently and effectively on behalf of her constituents. She is a first-class constituency member. I am also delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) in the Chamber. I believe that my hon. Friends are the best parliamentary team from Reading in more than a generation. Before I deal with the points that my hon. Friend has made, I shall describe briefly the work that the Government are taking forward to improve publicly funded legal services in England and Wales.
The Government's proposals to reform the legal aid scheme and improve the justice system were set out in the White Paper "Modernising Justice" and in the Access to Justice Bill, which will come before the House this afternoon. Our intention is to help ordinary people use the justice system to enforce their rights and solve their problems and to create a system that offers people the best-quality services at a price that the taxpayer can afford.
Our new community legal service, which will be established under the Access to Justice Bill, will approach problems in a radical new way. It will provide access to information, assistance and advice. It will aim to ensure that a range of legal services is available when and where people need it, and that those services meet the actual needs of people. It will work in partnership with other funders and providers of legal services and use local expertise so that we can build up a pattern of legal services that meets local need. It will create opportunities for innovative legal services delivered in new ways and taking advantage of new technology. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said, it is the cornerstone of our legal services strategy.
The greater use of conditional fees to fund litigation will open up the courts to those who cannot afford to litigate. However, some individuals will still need public support to pursue a case. The community legal service will encompass what is currently civil and family legal aid. It will ensure that the right priorities are set for the use of the funds that are available, and that those who provide services provide good quality at a good price. The use of contracts with suppliers will introduce competition to the market and ensure that quality services are provided at a value-for-money price. Contracting will improve our control over the amount of public funds spent on legal services. Funds will be targeted at priority cases, and cases will not go to court if the problem can be resolved in some other way.
A great deal of work is already being done to prepare for the community legal service. Pioneer community legal service partnerships with local authorities have been set up in a number of areas to identify and test best practice in co-ordinating local funding and planning to match the delivery of services with local needs and to build local referral networks.
Not every local authority could become a pioneer partner, and Reading was not among those chosen. The nearest partnership area to Reading is Slough, but Reading will be able to benefit from the work that is being done to develop a blueprint for local authorities to follow when establishing their own community legal service frameworks.
Reading falls within the area of the Legal Aid Board's southern legal services committee, which covers Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight—an area with a total population in excess of 4.25 million. In April 1999, the committee published its assessment of the need for legal services and its strategic plan for letting contracts for publicly funded legal services from next year.
The assessment of need was consulted on widely through a series of county-based conferences. As a result of representations made at those conferences, a "Greater Reading" contract zone was created to incorporate residential areas in particular parts of neighbouring authorities since it was felt that those residents would be most likely to seek legal services within Reading.
Greater Reading has been assessed as having a high priority of need for legal services in the matrimonial and family, debt, housing, welfare benefits, employment, consumer, general contract and immigration areas of law. Contracts for the provision of publicly funded legal services in those high-priority areas will be issued to those providers who bid for contracts, provided they meet the board's franchise quality standard.
I understand that the southern legal services committee has put the establishment of the community legal service in Reading high on its agenda and is building on its relationship with local government to prepare to participate in the development of the community legal service. Meetings with the advice sector and other providers in Reading are planned to take place in September to take this work forward.
The new community legal service, together with the criminal defence service which will replace criminal legal aid, will be set up and administered by a new non-departmental public body, the Legal Services Commission. The commission will replace the Legal Aid Board, to which Parliament delegated the day-to-day administration of the legal aid scheme. This delegation is essential to ensure that decisions on the granting of legal aid in individual cases can be seen to be free from political and governmental influence.
My hon. Friend referred to several cases upon which she said, correctly, that I was unable to comment. That is the philosophy behind establishing a body that is separate from Government. However, I know that the area manager of the Reading legal aid area office will be pleased to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any particular concerns that she may have. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, the Legal Aid Board may not disclose specific information about a legally aided person or his or her opponent without that person's consent.

Mr. Salter: At the risk of embarrassing my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is aware that the manager of the Reading legal aid service is not well known for responding to correspondence from Members of Parliament?

Mr. Vaz: I am sure that my hon. Friend would never want to embarrass me in any way. If the manager of the local area office is not well known, I will ensure that my hon. Friends receive a letter from him on their desks in the House of Commons tomorrow morning—although I do not know whether I can ask him to include a colour photograph.
Disclosure is prevented by section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988, which is designed to preserve confidentiality and ensure that information is not disclosed if it might prejudice legal proceedings. That provision often prevents the board from disclosing the factual basis for its decisions in individual cases, and that is quite right.
My hon. Friend may wish to advise any constituent who has a complaint about the way in which the Reading legal aid area office has handled a particular case that all the board's area offices have a customer services manager who is responsible for the management of the complaints process. A customer services team in the board's head office is responsible for providing an independent review of any complaints already handled by an area office.
All representations and complaints received by the board are investigated fully in accordance with central guidance. However, it should be remembered that the confidentiality provision may mean that the board is unable to explain the reasons for its decision in a particular case. This is particularly relevant when a person has made representations to the board that an opponent's legal aid certificate should be withdrawn or revoked.
In such cases, feelings can run high and it is often difficult for the person making the representations to accept the board's decision without being provided with the reasons for it. However, it should be remembered that, in many cases, the board will have access to further, confidential information, which has a bearing on its decision. For example, the board may have information about a legally aided person's financial circumstances, his or her solicitor's opinion on the strength of the case, evidence and pleadings and, sometimes, counsel's opinion. As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, the disclosure of such information to a third party could unfairly affect the way in which the case progresses.
In April 1997, the board established a special investigations unit to address identified deficiencies in the assessment of the means of legal aid applicants with complex financial affairs. In 82 per cent. of the investigations carried out in 1998–99, applicants were found to be financially ineligible for legal aid, or they did not co-operate with the board in the assessment of their means, leading to the failure of their application or the discharge or revocation of their legal aid certificate. My hon. Friend asked for an assurance, and I can assure her that those matters are taken very seriously, and there is the most rigorous scrutiny of those cases.
Later this year, the Legal Aid Board will begin a pilot scheme to obtain independent opinions on the merits of cases funded through legal aid. Cases that appear to be weaker than was originally stated will be referred to a member of a specialist panel of barristers. The board may refer cases not only on its own initiative, but after representations made by assisted persons' opponents and by the courts. The independent specialist will act in an inquisitorial role, and will not only reassess the merits on the basis of the case put forward by the legally aided person, but reconsider the merits as a whole.
The new funding code, which will replace the civil legal aid merits test under the reformed scheme, will ensure that public money is targeted on the highest priority and most deserving cases by requiring a set of rigorous criteria to be taken into account in the assessment of applications for funding. That code will be flexible, in that different criteria may be applied to different types of case, according to priorities and the availability of resources. High priorities will include social welfare cases, those involving the interests of children and those with a wider public interest.
Subject to those priorities, there will be an assumption that public funding will be available only if a prudent individual, who could afford to do so, would be prepared to risk his or her own money in litigation. Underpinning that approach will be the application of stringent cost-benefit ratios that reflect the prospects of a successful outcome. Cases that are judged to have a 60 to 80 per cent. chance of success would generally have to secure damages of at least three times the likely costs. Cases with a less than even chance of success would be very unlikely to receive funding, unless they were of the highest priority.
Decisions on funding will also take into account the availability of alternative sources of funding, including conditional fee agreements, and alternative means of resolving the dispute.
The Reading legal aid area office, like all the board's area offices, operates under the Legal Aid Act 1988 and the regulations made under it. The board is taking forward a programme of improvements to the guidance that it issues to caseworkers to promote justifiable and, where cases are similar, consistent decision making. For example, in 1998–99 the board introduced further guidance on when and how to investigate representations against the grant or continuation of legal aid and introduced better controls to ensure the management of the process.
A computerised system has been introduced for monitoring progress and analysing the outcomes of representations received, and a new leaflet explaining to the public how representations are dealt with has been produced.
A quality index is being developed as a way of measuring the quality of operational performance at local and national level to give a balanced measure of performance in terms of efficiency, speed and the quality of service that the board provides.
The Reading office exceeds the board's operational performance targets in all areas except speed of replying to general correspondence, where performance, at 95 per cent., is slightly below the target of dealing with all correspondence within 20 working days of receipt in 100 per cent. of cases. A number of the board's area offices are currently performing slightly below target in that area. The board is concentrating on improving its performance in its handling of correspondence. Furthermore, the board has set new, more challenging targets in many areas of its work for 1999–2000.
Having heard from my hon. Friend, I have decided to visit the Reading legal aid area office during the summer recess to meet the staff and see the work that they are doing. That visit is in addition to ensuring that letters are sent by the legal aid manager, with or without his or her photograph. I should like to extend an invitation to my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West and other hon. Members whose constituencies fall within the Reading legal aid area to join me on that visit.
The Legal Aid Board is committed progressively to improving the quality and efficiency of its services and to ensuring that its decisions and actions are justifiable to all those affected by them. The board is playing a major role in implementing the Government's reforms to publicly funded legal services and managing its transition to the legal services commission.
The pace of change that the board's staff are facing is, as my hon. Friend has said, challenging, and I am grateful to them for the commitment that they continue to demonstrate to maintaining performance standards and implementing the changes. I have every confidence that the board will continue to work hard to make the reforms a success. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friends the Members for Reading, East and for Reading, West when I visit Reading to meet the staff at the area office.

Post Office Counters Ltd.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I am grateful for this opportunity to initiate an Adjournment debate. The debate's grand title on the Order Paper, "Competition policy and Post Office Counters", stems from one case, but it is a case that has stirred up a great deal of emotion in my constituency. Approximately 4,000 people signed a petition in a very short time, and many local businesses were outraged by the behaviour of Post Office Counters Ltd.
The case raises wider issues of policy, which I want to put to the Minister. In particular, it arouses concern among many of the 17,000 or so postmasters and postmistresses who run the small businesses that operate the Post Office network. In most cases, their relationship with the network is perfectly good and, with enlightened management, the Post Office network can be very creative. However, in many cases, of which my constituency case is one, the postmaster or postmistress is in a commercially vulnerable position, and is wholly dependent on the monopoly operation of Post Office Counters Ltd. In this case, Post Office Counters Ltd. has been highly authoritarian and there have been unacceptable forms of management. I want to focus on that relationship and make some suggestions.
I shall make three proposals before I turn to Dr. Oraki's case, which highlights the issues. The first relates to the nature of dismissals. Post Office Counters Ltd. can dismiss those who have a contractual relationship with it. That may happen for a variety of reasons, including impropriety or the failure to maintain proper standards of service.
What is strange is that those who have a contractual relationship with the Post Office—the sub-postmasters and postmistresses—do not have a right of appeal in the normal sense. Many of them have tried, as my constituent has, to go through an appeal process using an industrial tribunal, but that has not been accepted as valid in law. There is no proper appeal system in cases where management exercise their powers capriciously and improperly. My recommendation, to which I shall return later in my remarks, is that the Minister should approach Post Office Counters Ltd. to set up a more equitable and balanced relationship.
My second proposal relates to the security of investments of this large number of small business people. Many of them are going into business for the first time and all their life savings are put at risk. Those savings can effectively be cancelled out at the stroke of a pen as the result of a decision by a Post Office network manager to relocate a post office. That is not normal commercial risk; it is highly unacceptable and it is subject to the abuses that any monopoly situation will create. Will the Minister investigate how he can steer Post Office Counters Ltd. into fairer relationships?
The third point relates to the consumer watchdog, the Post Office Users National Council. In this regard, I sought for the first time as a Member of Parliament to make use of that organisation's services. To put it brutally, I found it completely and utterly useless, totally unresponsive to consumer feeling in my area and, as far as I could see, largely a mouthpiece for the Post Office management. That is a very unsatisfactory relationship for

an organisation that is publicly funded, and it should be questioned. I should like the Minister to consider policy in those three basic areas. I shall briefly go over the case that brought all that to light and led me to the conclusions that I have pursued.
Like many people, Dr. Oraki wanted to enter business through owning a post office. Five years ago, she bought a post office in Whitton in my constituency, for which she paid roughly £100,000 plus a franchise fee to the Post Office. Since then, she has run a fairly successful commercial operation. She had some teething difficulties in the first year and there were a few complaints, but as far as I can establish, there were only roughly 15 complaints over the entire period. Since the Post Office does not publish complaints by individual post office, it is difficult to judge the seriousness of that number of complaints, but, as far as I can gather, it is extremely low among post offices of comparable size.
Last year, however, one incident produced a major crisis in the otherwise relatively uncontroversial local post office. A customer entered the post office and asked to send a parcel to Chile. Dr. Oraki's employee at the counter did not know where Chile was. The customer was outraged and wrote a very strong letter of complaint to Post Office Counters Ltd. Acting on that complaint, the Post Office management descended on the local post office, which led to a set of circumstances in which the contract was terminated and Dr. Oraki lost her post office.
Dr. Oraki believed that the circumstances of the termination were bizarre and totally unreasonable, and contested her dismissal at an industrial tribunal. Because she was doing so, she did not take advantage of the Post Office's suggestion that she put the post office on the market. In time, the industrial tribunal reached a negative result, but in a very bizarre twist, which caused me and many others to question what was going on in the Post Office, she was offered a job with more responsibility in a bigger post office. That raised great doubts about why on earth her contract had been terminated in the first place.
In addition, the Post Office proceeded to issue a contract to another post office further down the road. That was the point at which I and others members of the community became aware of it, because under the statutory public consultation process, we were duly notified. I was told without any explanation of the context that a new, bigger, better-equipped office was due to open in the area. That turned out to be largely a fabrication, but was none the less the context in which I was first drawn into the case.
I will not bore the Minister with any more details because he clearly cannot intervene directly—the law is clear. Post Office Counters Ltd. has commercial independence in this respect and it would be improper to push the Minister directly to interfere beyond where his powers lie. I shall, however, summarise the case.
A small entrepreneur invested her life savings in a post office, which at the latest estimate is worth £150,000, and subsequently lost almost all of it because the building had very little resale value without the post office in it. She lost a major investment as a result of what appears to be a capricious decision by Post Office Counters management. The Post Office gained another post office down the road, another franchise fee and the opportunity to deal with another employee under a more favourable


contract. Frankly, if that happened in business, we would call it sharp practice. As it concerns a public utility, it raises questions about public policy. I shall proceed from the personal case to describe the public policy issues stemming from it, which I ask the Minister to consider in detail.
The first such issue relates to the circumstances in which a sub-postmistress or sub-postmaster can be dismissed or have their office terminated. The background is a unique, complex and difficult legal structure. The 17,000 or 18,000 people who work as sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses provide employment for services; they are officeholders with emoluments. They fall into a distinct semi-employment, semi-contractual legal category—a hybrid.
When such a hybrid relationship works well, it apparently works very well. The federation that represents postmasters and postmistresses is not suggesting for a moment that the fundamental basis for the relationship should change. When it works well, it gives sub-postmasters commercial freedom and some of the elements of employment, but when it works badly, with unenlightened or authoritarian management, it works extremely badly. A postmaster can be pitched out of his post office with no legal protection and no independent source of appeal.
I ask the Minister to approach Post Office Counters Ltd. in order to require it to introduce a genuinely balanced relationship with its sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, establishing for them a quasi-judicial appeal process of the kind that they would enjoy if they were employees. That would rectify the many cases of often severe injustice.
The second matter—it is related—on which I ask the Minister to intervene is the question of loss of investment. As has happened in this case, a small business person may put her life savings at risk and lose it all. Even if there had been no controversy and Dr. Oraki had simply decided to retire and the Post Office had decided to move the service up the road, she would have lost all her investment. It is wrong that a monopoly—the Post Office network is of course one such monopoly—should have the power to negate an entrepreneur's investment. That is even more pertinent given that anybody who wishes to acquire a post office must pay the Post Office a substantial franchise fee. Will the Minister intervene in order that a system in which some security of tenure is provided, so that small businesses are not put at such risk, which is not normal commercial risk but depends on the good practice of a monopoly utility?
The third policy point relates to the functioning of post office consumer groups, which are statutorily provided. I approached the POUNC to help to support this case. It was certainly very courteous and approachable, but it became very clear that it was acting on advice from management. It appeared unable to respond to local feeling—it seemed to regard the very large petition as wholly irrelevant—and simply responded to me by quoting back information from the Post Office that was simply wrong.
I am afraid that that episode led me to lose confidence completely in the impartiality of the supposed consumer watchdog. I hope that, in the Minister's negotiations and discussions with the Post Office, which are of course taking place in a wider context, such deficiencies will be understood.
I fully support the principle that the Government have sought to develop. I am entirely with the Minister on the broader policy of the Post Office having greater commercial freedom. But, if it is given such freedom, the monopoly that it enjoys through its network must not be deployed to the disadvantage of the very many small businesses that make up that network. I also believe—as the Government obviously do—in the importance of maintaining, for social as well as economic reasons, the Post Office Counters network system. It is a very valuable institution. However, in the final analysis it is a people business, and the people are the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. They must be employed on a fair and equitable basis; otherwise, that business loses much of its value to the community.
In that spirit, I ask the Minister to probe the matter further. I realise that there are limits to his statutory powers of intervention in a specific case, but I ask him to pursue the matter as far as possible, to rectify both a particular injustice and some fundamental systemic weakness in the way that the Post Office network system is managed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the opportunity to debate a range of issues relating to post offices and to the Post Office Counters business of the Post Office today. The points that he raised largely arise from the circumstances of a constituent, who formerly operated a sub-post office. The hon. Gentleman eloquently described the dilemma in which that person found herself. As he knows, many hon. Members have experienced similar problems with post offices in their constituency, so I am glad that the matter has been raised.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I am unable to discuss the specifics of the case. It centres in part on a particular set of circumstances in respect of which legal action is still in prospect. In wider terms, however, the issues that he has raised relate to aspects of the contractual terms and arrangements that apply between Post Office Counters Ltd. and about 18,000 individual sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses throughout the country. Indeed, I understand that the Post Office is the biggest single retail chain that exists anywhere: it is an enormously important retail chain, and matters affecting it deserve our concern.
In responding to the range of issues and arguments that have been raised today about those terms and arrangements, it is important to understand the broader context in which they are set.
Since the Post Office was established as a public corporation in 1969, it has been the policy of successive Governments that decisions relating to the day-to-day running of the postal businesses, such as the contractual terms and the arrangements between sub-postmasters and Post Office Counters Ltd., are the operational responsibility of the Post Office Board and management. The Government's role in Post Office matters is confined to broad issues of general policy and to overall financial control. With a network of some 18,000 sub-post offices, it would be inappropriate and impractical for Government or Ministers to become involved in decisions or disputes relating to individual offices.
However, I have noted the concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham about the consultation procedures that operate in respect of proposed closure or relocation of individual post offices. A great many of us in this place have experience of such closure or relocation, as the Crown post offices were closed over a period and new offices were opened. The current arrangements operate in accordance with a code of practice that is agreed between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the Post Office Users National Council, the statutory body representing consumers' interests in postal services. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said about the POUNC. He will be pleased to hear—I say this in guarded terms at the moment—that I am carefully considering the effectiveness, strengths and weaknesses of the POUNC. The matter needs to be looked at—and, believe me, it is being looked at.
The consultation process is designed to inform—and to seek comments from—local residents and users of a proposed change in the status or location of a particular post office. During a one-month consultation period, views and comments are sought from the local Member of Parliament, the local authority, the local post office advisory committee and customers. In general, the consultation process works pretty well, though I am aware that the hon. Member for Twickenham feels that, in the case that is of concern to him, the consultation process should have specified the reason for the proposed relocation. As a Minister who is very much in favour of transparency, I believe that that issue should be very carefully examined.
It is fair to say, however, that in many cases there are sensitivities about the reason for the decision, and a delicate judgment may need to be made about disclosure and its potential impact on the reputation or standing of an outgoing sub-postmaster. Therefore—understandably—Post Office Counters Ltd. tends to err on the side of caution in such matters.
All sub-postmasters and franchisees are appointed under contract for the provision of services as agents. They are not employees of the Post Office or of Post Office Counters Ltd. and, as agents, their contractual terms and conditions differ significantly from those of an employee.
A sub-postmaster's contract is a commercial arrangement between the individual sub-postmaster and Post Office Counters Ltd. As a standard condition of the contract, both parties can give three months' notice of termination and neither party is required to give reasons for doing so. Similarly, there is no right of appeal on either side against a three-month notice to terminate the contract. I know that the absence of appeal processes in such circumstances is a matter of concern to the hon. Member for Twickenham and other hon. Members. Although I appreciate the background to that concern, such a right of appeal would tend to distort the commercial even-handedness of the contract unless sub-postmasters were also to be subject to appeals against their decision to resign. Contracts are terminated far more frequently by sub-postmasters than they are by Post Office Counters Ltd. Against that background, I understand that the National Federation of Sub-postmasters fully supports the principle underpinning the

present arrangements under which Post Office Counters Ltd. does, in appropriate circumstances, offer an interview with regional managers at the most senior levels.
On occasions, there will be disputes about the background to, and the circumstances of, a decision by Post Office Counters Ltd. to terminate a contract. That is probably inevitable, given the size of the network of sub-post offices and the number of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. For the most part, however, the present arrangements appear to operate satisfactorily from the perspective of sub-postmasters and Post Office Counters Ltd.
What is indisputable is that the nationwide network of post offices which these arrangements underpin has served the United Kingdom well over the years. The post offices have enabled the Post Office to maintain the most extensive retail network in Europe. The Government fully recognise the importance of the post office network and both we and Post Office Counters Ltd. are committed to the maintenance of a nationwide network of post offices. We are also fully aware of the importance of post offices to their local communities, particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas. More than 98 per cent. of the network, including all sub-post offices, is privately owned and operated, representing a valuable partnership between the public and private sectors.
It is obviously important that the contractual arrangements that govern the partnerships between Post Office Counters Ltd. and individual sub-postmasters are commercially and administratively viable. If they are not, the network will not survive. Although the network has been slowly shrinking for many years, the recent post office closures reflect the difficulties in finding suitable applicants to take on offices which, even in conjunction with an associated retail business, are not judged to be commercially viable by prospective purchasers. As far as either the Government or Post Office Counters Ltd. are aware, it is wider socio-economic and demographic factors, rather than the contractual arrangements at present applicable to sub-postmasters, that have largely been responsible for this trend.
Decisions relating to the operational arrangements for the postal business, including the contractual terms and arrangements relating to sub-postmasters, are and must remain the responsibility of the Post Office board and management. I am sure—I hope very much that this will be the position—that the chairman and chief executive will take note and reflect on the issues and concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised so eloquently.
We have a little time to explore some of the specific issues to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. As I said earlier, I am particularly concerned about the effectiveness of the Post Office Users National Council. The hon. Gentleman has done us all a valuable service by giving us a detailed account of the reaction that he had from the POUNC. The present Government, the previous Government and earlier Governments have put considerable sums into the POUNC. One wonders what benchmarks were used to test whether the funding was being used effectively. It is very much up to government now to understand whether precious taxpayers' money is being used properly. Against the background of the hon. Gentleman's experience, he identified some clear limits to what the POUNC is capable of doing.
I give him an undertaking that we shall carefully examine the POUNC, including its structure and the way in which it works. We shall examine whether it is open enough in its relationship with the public and whether it reacts quickly enough and with any degree of effectiveness to the problems that are brought before it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about whether the POUNC is too close to Post Office management. That is an important issue. The POUNC must be seen to be the consumers' champion.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Post Office Counters Ltd. being able to guarantee some job or contractual security to franchisees, to sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. I tried to indicate when I responded to the hon. Gentleman earlier that security is something that must be thrashed out between the various representative organisations and the Post Office itself. We are about to witness a sea change in the way in which the management of the Post Office works and the way in which it operates in a new commercial context. It is a good time to re-examine these issues and it is important that the Post Office does so.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any guarantee about security of tenure. There are few commercial organisations, and certainly retail outlets, that can offer such security, no matter which sector they are operating in. It is a difficult area. The hon. Gentleman told the House that currently there is not an appeal system. I feel that that is something that must be negotiated between the franchisees and the Post Office, and Post Office Counters Ltd. itself. It is to be hoped that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses will be employed, as the hon. Gentleman said, on an equitable basis. There is every reason why they should be. They are a valuable asset to any community of which they are part.
I hope very much that management will listen to the hon. Gentleman and that we shall see some results as a consequence of this short debate.

Kashmir

Lorna Fitzsimons: It is a great honour to initiate this Adjournment debate. I understand that this is the first time that the House has discussed Kashmir since 1996. Given recent events in Kargil, it is important that British Members of Parliament have a chance to put on record our opinions and views and the work that we and the Government have been doing in relation to Kashmir and the people of Jammu and Kashmir.
I shall set out the movement that I am asking for from the Government in using the direct representation that Ministers have in their power and garnering support from the rest of the international community on several issues relating to human rights, democracy and demilitarisation in Jammu and Kashmir.
Many people will have views about my motivations as the hon. Member for Rochdale. Is the purpose of the debate pure electoral expediency because there is a large Kashmiri community within my constituency? Am I too pro-Pakistani? Might I be nice to the Indian Government? The House has to thank two people for my taking up the cause of the Kashmiri people. These are real, ordinary people in my constituency, who are British citizens. They do not represent an organisation. Their stories motivated me to take up the issue. I refer to Haji Ahmed and Amna Meir. They are two of my dearest friends.
Haji is the closest that I have ever come to someone who is genuinely a pacifist. He was imprisoned in India-controlled Kashmir for three years. He is with us now through the interventions of Neil Kinnock and Cyril Smith. To my knowledge, Haji has never done anything, not even swatting a fly, that could ever be construed as violence. The way that he stoically but passionately carries the belief still that the Kashmiris are the wronged people in everything that has happened throughout history in the territory led me to initiate the debate.
It is an historical truism that the Kashmiris are the wronged people. It was not their fault that 50 years ago their maharajah decided that, because of incursions from one side of the territory and because the state of Pakistan wanted to hurry him up in making a decision because he was doing a lot of fence-sitting, he would sign an accession agreement with India without consulting the people. The subsequent United Nations resolution recognised that and demanded that there should be a plebiscite to put the question to the people of Jammu and Kashmir and the princely state.
I have always been told by those much more eminent than me that we do not know where we are going in future if we do not know our history. In the research that I undertook in preparing for the debate I had quite a big history lesson. I want to say thank you to many people because I have actively tried to be even-handed and I have been briefed by the Indian high commissioner, the Pakistani high commissioner, representatives in the United Kingdom of Sultan Mahmud Chaudhary and many of my constituents. I have genuinely sought to be balanced.
I was surprised, when talking to the Indian high commissioner, about India's non-acceptance of the 1949 UN resolution. Basically, the high commissioner said that India played the politics of the day wrong. It did


not realise that, because Pakistan was starting to be pro-western, the cookie could crumble on its side. India thinks that the agreement that it signed with Pakistan in 1972 negates any responsibility in terms of the original UN resolution. It says that despite all the problems in all the other ex-princely states that now make up India, no plebiscite or vote was offered to them. The decision was made by the maharajah of the time. India says that it could not retrospectively, no matter what the UN resolution stated, refer the question to the people of Jammu and Kashmir now.
I pay tribute to one of our international guests who, I am pleased to say, is watching the debate—the former chief justice of Azad Kashmir, Majid Malik, whose wisdom and even-handed approach to history and whose advice to me I have found extremely beneficial.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No. I shall make a little progress before giving way.
I am led to believe that there are two historical anomalies in the current Indian position. The first relates to Juna Garh. I hope that the House will forgive my pronunciation—I am a northern lass. Juna Garh was a princely state whose ruler was a Muslim, although the majority of the population was non-Muslim. India opposed the decision that was made and Pakistan brought the matter to the attention of the United Nations Security Council. A plebiscite was held and the decision went with the will of the people, rather than the will of the maharajah.
A second example is Hyderabad, a large state in the middle of India. The ruler decided to declare independence rather than accede to India or Pakistan. According to some commentators, India forcibly occupied the state. A plebiscite was held and the will of the people, who were predominantly non-Muslim, favoured accession to India.
In those two examples, because of the discrepancy between the will of the maharajah and the democratic will of the majority of the people, a plebiscite was held. That flies in the face of what Indian representatives would have us believe about the problems of implementing the UN resolution.
I emphasise that I want to be seen to be even-handed, but deeds speak loudest about what is happening in India. I do not like to be told that my job is to represent my people in Rochdale, not to poke my nose into international issues. I have been requested to speak out by Haji and Amna. Their families still live in Azad Kashmir, and I represent people who still have families in Indian-controlled Kashmir. If the families of British citizens are affected by what is happening 50 years on, I have a responsibility as an elected representative in the United Kingdom Parliament to draw attention to the matter.
One of the things that brings us together, and brought the world together in the second world war, is that when human rights are denied in some part of the world, we as civilised western society have the responsibility to do

everything in our power to bring about a cessation of violence, demilitarisation and the restoration of human rights.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene in this important debate. Does she agree that the line of control must be respected if there is ever to be peace between India and Pakistan, and that India has shown remarkable and commendable restraint in its response to the incursion by Pakistani armed forces across the line of control in their attempt to undermine India's territorial sovereignty?

Lorna Fitzsimons: I understand my hon. Friend's position, but I do not agree with him. Aircraft were used, not in time of war. I do not call that restraint. The presence of a military person to every six civilians is not what I call even-handed.
That does not mean that I do not have views about terror organisations that do not have at heart the interests of Kashmiri people. I abhor their perpetration of acts of terror, supposedly in the name of self-determination, as I abhor violence on the part of any country or military organisation. If we criticise terror organisations, as India and Amnesty International would have us do, we should also scrutinise India's human rights record. I watch with interest.

Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No.
We must ask those on the Front Bench to scrutinise the new state human rights commission established by India in 1997. When I met the Indian high commissioner, it was acknowledged that, because India had such a strong and independent judicial system, it was thought that that would deal with any human rights petitions, disappearances and so on. Primarily because of lobbying by the Kashmiri population throughout the world, and the pressures brought to bear by the British Government and others and by Amnesty International, the human rights commission was set up.
At first the commission was not trusted, and there was no flood of people coming forward with cases to be investigated. Now the head of the commission reports that it cannot cope with the number of cases of people reported missing, in enforced detention and so on.

Ms Margaret Moran: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that it would enhance the confidence of the Kashmiri people in the organisations available to redress human rights injustices if the Indian Government would also recognise that scrutiny from independent human rights organisations would be helpful in matters of greatest dispute? As in my hon. Friend's constituency, people in my constituency have families who are directly affected. They can tell me of human rights violations that go on daily. Their confidence in the existing human rights organisations established by the Indian Government will not be enhanced without independent scrutiny.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. If it is true, as the Indian Government tell us, that the majority of human rights abuses are perpetrated by


terror organisations, why do they not allow independent scrutineers? We welcome the fact that recently they have allowed the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and Save the Children some access, and one or two journalists have been allowed in. However, truly independent scrutiny would, for example, allow a delegation of interested UK Members of Parliament to obtain visas to visit the disputed areas to see the situation for themselves, and would grant Amnesty International access.

Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way, please?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No. I want to make progress.
I understand the Indian Government's concerns about Amnesty International, which previously commented only on state-sponsored abuses of human rights. Now, as can be seen from Amnesty's latest report that was made available on the internet in February, it also comments—and investigates as far as it can without being allowed access—on abuses of human rights by terror organisations, the occurrence of which we must all acknowledge.
The Kashmiri people whom I represent hate the cause of Kashmiri liberation being hijacked by other organisations. Taking up the gun and using the bullet does no one any favours. The Kashmiri people have no chance of democratic choice and self-determination unless they have human rights.
I am not speaking of access to health care and education. Forget that. I am speaking about the fact that women and children are paying the price. People mysteriously disappear or are held in detention. There is ample evidence from Amnesty and the Indian Government in reports to Congress by successive Ministers that people are detained under defunct anti-terrorism legislation. All over the world, the people who pay the price are the most vulnerable in society. If the main breadwinner disappears, who will support the women and children, if there is no active welfare state?
As people who believe in human rights and as internationalists, we have to join together to say that India should allow the international community into Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir if it believes that people are being made destitute because of the actions of terror organisations. Independent evidence could therefore be gathered and people could make a judgment. When Back Benchers or delegations meet the Indian Government, they make the point that Pakistan is involved in funding and promoting terror incursions across the border. There is clearly enough room for believing that the Government of Pakistan are in some way involved in those incursions; indeed, it would be very difficult to say that they are not involved. However, proof is required. India uses the alleged incursions and the funding or promotion of such activities by freelance terror organisations—

Mr. Stephen Pound: rose—

Mr. Tony Baldry: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Interventions from the Opposition Front Bench are not allowed in Adjournment debates.

Lorna Fitzsimons: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).

Mr. Pound: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Like every Member of the House, I respect her reputation for representing the best interests of her constituents and the even-handed way in which she has approached this matter, but she used the expression "alleged incursions". Does she not agree that there was a military incursion? Will she condemn it, regardless of who financed or initiated it?

Lorna Fitzsimons: I condemn any overt military activity taken against a peace-loving people, wherever it comes from. That goes for India's overt military action and the unwelcome terror activities undertaken by some of the organisations that allegedly support the Kashmiri cause. I represent wholly non-violent people who want to use the ballot box to achieve self-determination.

Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No.
People should be allowed to achieve self-determination through the ballot box and that can be achieved only when their human rights are established. For example, the United Nations does not want free and fair elections to be held in East Timor until stability has been achieved and until it has been proven that there will be no intimidation from any force. The same must happen in Kashmir. We cannot expect people to participate in a democracy when they are being subjected to bullying, which is the weakest phrase that I can use, or to terrorism, which is the stronger expression used in the Amnesty International report, in order to deny them their free will. Such action must be condemned, wherever it comes from.

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that, to end the tensions between India and Pakistan and to bring peace and stability to the region, it is absolutely essential that the dispute over Kashmir is resolved according to the UN resolution and the wishes of the Kashmiri people? Does she further agree that the representatives of the Kashmiri people should be involved in any future talks or negotiations?

Lorna Fitzsimons: Yes. The bottom line is that the Kashmiri people have been wronged. It cannot be argued that other princely states did not play a role in deciding their own destinies when disputes arose and, as was recognised as far back as 1949, the people of Jammu and Kashmir must be allowed to play such a role.
We must recognise that some of our compatriots, who want an independent state to be established, think that the UN resolution has shortcomings. It is not up to me to determine whether independence or accession to India or to Pakistan is the issue, but we have to be honest with the Kashmiri people we represent and say to them that that is not part of the UN resolution. I believe, however, that any vote that allowed the Kashmiri people to express a view, whether on accession to India or on accession to Pakistan, would be a step forward. Hon. Members will be able to understand these concerns, especially as there have been several rounds of bilateral talks between India and Pakistan over 50 years. The Kashmiri people themselves are at the bottom of the list, however, and the dispute is treated as territorial rather than as something that affects real people.
We must acknowledge in the debate that real people are paying the price for the dispute and scaling down the military presence must be the priority. If Pakistan is perpetrating or encouraging incursions and acts of terror as has been alleged, it must desist because the Indian Government are using those incursions as a fig leaf. By the same token, the Indian Government have to accept that having such an overt military presence has not worked; they have not calmed or charmed the Kashmiri people and implementation of the UN resolution is the only measure that would allow the Kashmiri people some peace of mind.
There has been a breakdown in trust because of the recent Kargil incidents, so we have to welcome the moves made by Nawaz Sharif, who visited the United States to hold talks with Bill Clinton, to try to calm the situation. We have to ask India to say that it is in nobody's interest to continue the stand-off: it has reclaimed Kargil and Nawaz Sharif has used his power and influence to make sure that the forces in Kargil retreated. We must ensure that the Lahore agreement, and every agreement that has been made since the original UN resolution was passed, is implemented.
It is right to pay tribute to the late Derek Fatchett and I welcome his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), to the debate. I know that, like Derek, he will take a lot of interest in Kashmir. We talked to Derek about the possibility of confidence-building measures being introduced to increase trust and deal with issues that affect the Administrations in both parts of the former princely state, which is split down the middle. We should try to achieve some movement—for example, dialogue between the representative groups in both parts of Kashmir. Nothing in the UN resolution or the 1972 accord says that the people could not and should not be allowed to cross the line freely.

Mr. Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she accept that this country's experience in Northern Ireland has taught us that recognition by sovereign states that such a problem is not merely a little local difficulty in part of their own country, but a bigger question, is one of the great steps that must be taken to achieve progress? When countries can accept that, the dialogue that needs to take place between two sovereign states in order to resolve a conflict is that much more likely to happen.

Lorna Fitzsimons: Absolutely. We could push for dialogue between the representative groups, including people who have been elected, so that they could discuss whether a joint agreement could be reached between them all. The Hurriat conference is an example of that. Lord Avebury has tried to organise conferences to facilitate some dialogue between the different representative Kashmiri organisations, and Derek Fatchett made similar efforts. We must keep trying even though we have not been successful so far—primarily because a lot of leaders in Indian-controlled Kashmir were not allowed visas to travel to the conference venues. We have to allow that dialogue to happen and we have to ask for the recommendations made by Amnesty International in its most recent report to be taken up.
We also must acknowledge our duty to ensure that we engage in continual dialogue with the Government of Azad Kashmir and the Jammu and Kashmir Administration of Farooq Abdullah. We must ensure that they provide people with feedback on any bilateral discussions that take place at the top table, or on any talks about getting other countries to take forward the cause of Kashmir, so that they feel that they are part of the process. If India is not going to accept a mediator, we must ensure that we use all the channels available so that the Kashmiris feel that they are represented. That is the key to the problem.

Mr. Khabra: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lorna Fitzsimons: No, I shall not. I must leave enough time for the Minister to reply, and I have already run over time.
I am proud of my Back-Bench colleagues who join me in the Chamber today. Many of them have campaigned for far longer than I have been involved in the Kashmiri issue to ensure that it is on the agenda. It is at the behest of us all, however, not to use the Kashmiri cause as a political football. I lament the fact that, both in my constituency and nationally, certain parties are using it in that way. No Liberal Democrat has ever attended an all-party Kashmir group since I have been elected, nor ever been to an all-party ministerial meeting. A promised early-day motion, which was discussed in Rochdale council chamber, about recognition of nationality in the forthcoming census has not been produced. All the activity that has taken place to keep the flag flying for the Kashmiri people and to ensure that they feel that we are representing them has been, and will continue to be, initiated by Labour Members. I am proud to say that we shall keep the flag flying for people such as my constituents, Haji and Amna.
I hope that every office will be used, as it has in the past, by the Foreign Secretary and the appropriate Ministers to ensure that we make progress on this issue. We must not just use our diplomatic channels with India and Pakistan, but must harness the power of the United States and other nation states. Just because no oil is involved, we must not fail to recognise that an injustice has been done. The people who have had the injustice done to them are those who are most vulnerable: the women and children of Kashmir.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) for making Kashmir the subject of this debate.
This is a timely opportunity to debate the question, and its place in our wider relations with India and Pakistan. Kashmir is an issue of great importance to all in Britain who count themselves as friends of India and Pakistan.
The recent fighting in Kashmir underlines the risks inherent in this continuing dispute—risks that have taken on a disturbing dimension given last year's nuclear tests. It is widely accepted that Kashmir is one of the most pressing regional security problems. I assure the House that the Government fully share those concerns and are actively encouraging India and Pakistan to resolve the underlying issues.
Our relations with both India and Pakistan are deep, multi-faceted and long-standing. Well over a million British people have their roots in the sub-continent. Our shared history with those countries has developed into links of enormous variety and dynamism. Consolidating and developing our relations with both countries is a priority for the Government.
India is already a major player on the world stage, and its importance is set to increase over the next few years. We want a modern, close and forward-looking partnership. We have many shared interests and we could, and should, be working more closely together in areas of mutual concern. Environmental protection is a prime example of a global issue in which India and the United Kingdom have leading roles, and where we seek better co-operation with India.
Our relations with Pakistan have long been marked by their warmth. We continue to build on our relationship to work with the Government of Pakistan on a wide range of issues. We want Pakistan to realise its great economic and human potential, and to continue to develop as a democratic partner in the Islamic world.

Mr. Gardiner: Is the Minister concerned that, while Pakistan's army chief, General Parvez Musharaf, admitted on 16 July that Pakistan forces aggressively crossed the line of control, the Pakistani Government were claiming that they were not responsible for the incursions? Does he agree that that raises worrying questions about who is really running the country? Given what he has already said about nuclear proliferation in the region, is he concerned about whether the civilian Government or the military is in control?

Mr. Hoon: I shall deal in due course with the resolution of the recent events in Kargil. In specific response to my hon. Friend, it may not be entirely helpful at this stage to dwell on what might have happened in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale said, what is important is to say how we shall take these issues forward, which is what I shall seek to do.
I have spent some time describing our wider relations with India and Pakistan. Our policy towards Kashmir is bound to our ties with those two countries. We can, and do, promote the search for a solution to this long-running issue through our contacts with both countries. Our efforts are all the more effective for being conducted quietly and within the context of established political relations based on mutual trust.
I shall not repeat the history of the Kashmir dispute, which is well known to Members of this House. Three wars and countless skirmishes have been fought over Kashmir. It has the dubious distinction of containing the world's highest battleground, the Siachen glacier, where Indian and Pakistani soldiers face each other, at dreadful cost, in financial and human terms, at heights of over 20,000 ft. Kashmir has been one of the reasons that India and Pakistan have been unable firmly to establish good relations and to realise their true economic potential.
We were, therefore, particularly concerned by events in Kargil over the past few weeks. The fighting could easily have escalated. That it did not is a tribute to the Indian Government, who restricted their response to the incursion; and to the Pakistani Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, who used his influence to ensure that those combatants who had crossed the line of control withdrew from those positions.
The UK was active behind the scenes. We were in close and constant contact with both Governments. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke at an early stage to his Indian and Pakistani colleagues to urge restraint and despatched a special envoy to Islamabad to reiterate those points. I spoke to the Indian and Pakistani high commissioners to reinforce that. Our high commissions in New Delhi and Islamabad stayed in close touch with their host Governments. We co-ordinated closely with our international partners, especially the United States. The UK was instrumental in ensuring that the European Union and the G8 made strong statements on the fighting.
We welcome the joint statement by President Clinton and Prime Minister Sharif of 4 July as a positive step. The Prime Minister met Prime Minister Sharif on 6 July to urge him to take the steps described in the statement. The Prime Minister wrote soon afterwards to the Indian Prime Minister to encourage him to maintain India's policy of restraint and respond positively to any moves by Pakistan. The Prime Minister has welcomed the end to the fighting around Kargil. Relieved as we are by the end of the immediate conflict, we are concerned that the suffering of ordinary people in Kashmir continues. There have been four massacres in recent weeks, and militants continue to attack the Indian security forces.
Throughout the crisis in Kargil, we have made it clear to both India and Pakistan that we consider that the route to a long-term solution lies in dialogue.

Mr. Khabra: Is the Minister aware that terrorists have brutally murdered Kashmiris, both Muslims and Hindus, including Europeans, and that that is one of the biggest problems? Does he agree that every Member of this House must recognise that the Government are committed to the fight against terrorism?

Mr. Hoon: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I shall turn to that matter in a moment.
When Prime Minister Vajpayee memorably travelled to Lahore this February, there was good reason to believe that both countries were ready to address the issues between them in a new and constructive spirit. From popular reaction in India and Pakistan, it seemed clear that this new spirit matched the hopes of the peoples of both countries. It is a matter of great regret that, only a few months after both Prime Ministers undertook to intensify their efforts to resolve all bilateral issues, including Kashmir, the events in Kargil have rendered that process more difficult.
It is important to recognise that the incursion, and the continuing violence of the militants in Jammu and Kashmir, have done nothing, and can do nothing, to promote a durable solution in Kashmir. The evidence suggests that the militants have little in common with the ordinary people of Kashmir, and do not represent them. As Amnesty International pointed out in a recent report, the militants are guilty of severe human rights abuses. An end to the support that the militants receive from outside Kashmir would greatly assist the search for a solution to the problem.
The search for a solution would also be assisted by early steps to improve the human rights performance of the Indian security forces in Jammu and Kashmir. Amnesty International has documented continuing reports of disappearances. We have welcomed the action already


taken by the Indian authorities to address human rights concerns. The national human rights commission is regarded as an effective custodian and promoter of human rights in India. It is to be hoped that the state human rights commission in Jammu and Kashmir develops in the same vein. We shall continue to press the Indian authorities to bring wrong-doers to justice, and to allow international organisations access to Jammu and Kashmir. My predecessor, Derek Fatchett, raised this issue with the Indian Home Minister last November, and I shall ensure that it continues to be a part of our dialogue with India.
Militancy, and human rights problems, will not be resolved overnight. In the meantime, we urge the Governments of India and Pakistan to resume their dialogue on all outstanding issues, including Kashmir. The long-term interests of both countries lie in a mutually acceptable solution.
The role of the people living in Kashmir is, rightly, another source of concern. No single group or institution can accurately claim to represent the views of all those who live in the territory of the former princely state. The interests of the Muslims of the Valley, the Buddhists of Ladakh and the displaced Hindu population are not uniform; nor have India and Pakistan agreed on the issue of Kashmiri participation. We firmly believe, however, that any solution, if it is to carry with it the people living in Kashmir, must take account of their views. Only then will it be accepted as just, and have a chance of lasting.
The Kashmir issue has been with us for more than 50 painful years. I agree with my hon. Friend—

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — CABINET OFFICE

The Minister was asked—

Civil Service (Ethnic Minorities)

Mr. Ben Chapman: What his plans are for encouraging the recruitment of ethnic minorities to the civil service. [90870]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The "Modernising Government" White Paper set out the Government's commitment to increasing ethnic minority representation in the civil service, particularly at senior levels. The Government have set a target to double the number of senior civil servants from ethnic minority backgrounds to 3.2 per cent. by 2005.

Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that response and I congratulate the Government on their announcements. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just in the higher civil service that there is a problem and that we need fair representation of ethnic minorities at all levels in the civil service? This issue should be tackled now, not just by the target year. We must take a systemic, root-and-branch approach to get people from ethnic minorities into the civil service and to change the climate so as to attract them. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what is being done now by way of secondment, recruitment policy and attachment from industry to change the climate in the public services to attract more people from ethnic minorities into their orbit?

Dr. Cunningham: I agree with everything my hon. Friend said. In truth, the performance of the civil service on the recruitment and promotion of people from ethnic communities has been poor, and the situation is unsatisfactory. That is why we have set that target but, as my hon. Friend will know, we are not simply setting a target and doing nothing else. We have announced a number of interim measures, and we shall announce further measures in the autumn. In the meantime, I shall appoint a senior ethnic minority adviser and an outreach worker to help to increase recruitment and secondment. We shall provide new opportunities for work experience for ethnic minority school children and students. We shall hold open days and careers fairs for ethnic minority undergraduates and young people. We are producing a video of ethnic minority role models already in the civil service. We are taking all those measures to attract more able young people from ethnic minority communities into the public service.

Sir Sydney Chapman: As I am sure that the Government want to set an example in this area, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how many special advisers to Ministers are drawn from ethnic minorities?

Dr. Cunningham: I cannot give an accurate answer to that question off the top of my head. I suspect that there may be none, but I am not altogether sure so I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

Mr. Piara S. Khabra: Does my right hon. Friend agree that some employees are still not

prepared to accept the new policy? If they continue the practice of discrimination, what steps does he propose to take against them?

Dr. Cunningham: I hope that there are no individuals in the civil service who do not subscribe to the Government's clear policy objectives in these matters. However, the Schneider Ross report, which I published a couple of weeks ago, emphasised the need for a culture change in the senior management of the civil service, and we are taking action with the help and strong personal commitment of the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson, to make the necessary changes in the civil service at all levels.

Genetically Modified Foods

Mr. Desmond Swayne: What endorsement the Government have sought from the National Consumer Council with regard to its policy on genetically modified foods. [90871]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Ministers discuss the development of Government policies with a large number of groups that have an interest in genetically modified foods, including the National Consumer Council.

Mr. Swayne: I suspected that the Minister would not go further than that. Does he agree that the leaked minute of the biotechnology presentation group on 10 May has been of great interest to a number of parties? It has funded an enormous number of questions, not least to the right hon. Gentleman. In the interests of open government, modernisation and the new politics, will he undertake to publish the minutes of that group to ensure that we continue to enjoy them in this way? Have independent spokesmen been placed on the "Today" programme, as the minute suggested?

Dr. Cunningham: I always welcome contributions to debates on this and other subjects from independently minded people on any programme, let alone "Today".
The hon. Gentleman said that the leaking of the minute had generated a great deal of interest. It certainly seems to have motivated him as we had exactly the same exchange of views in the Chamber a month ago and the answer was exactly the same: no.

Mr. Nigel Beard: What steps are being taken to protect field trials of genetically modified crops from vandalism? If such trials do not take place, there will be no basis for judgment of the environmental impact of GM crops, and a major biotechnological opportunity for Britain may be lost.

Dr. Cunningham: This is a serious and difficult situation. It is deplorable that, while some environmental groups are calling for trials precisely so that we can gauge and examine the potential impact of genetically modified crops on biodiversity, other groups are trashing the experiments, wrecking the crops and preventing us securing the very evidence that we need in order to make an assessment and to make properly informed decisions. Disorder and criminal damage to property are, of course,


matters for the police rather than for Ministers, but the police have a very difficult job trying to safeguard the trials.

Mr. Norman Baker: Can the Government explain why they are allowing animal feed with genetically modified ingredients to be sold unlabelled, with no indication to farmers and consumers that such ingredients are present? Do not farmers and consumers have a right to know what they are buying?

Dr. Cunningham: The explanation is that we inherited that situation. We decided to appoint an advisory committee on animal feedstuffs, which is being set up now. The previous Government received a recommendation suggesting that they should set up a committee but did not act on it. We are also considering the labelling issue.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: What point has the discussion on genetically modified food reached in the European Union? I am thinking especially of the changes that are due for agriculture beyond 2000. Is that discussion on the G8 agenda?

Dr. Cunningham: Given the current state of affairs, few agendas do not include an item referring to biosciences or to genetically modified food or crops. I assure my hon. Friend that there are continuing discussions in the European Union on labelling and other matters such as the implications for biodiversity. As he will recall, the Cologne summit decided to ask the scientific committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to examine all these issues on an international basis, and we shall make a positive contribution to that examination.

Mr. David Curry: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise just how limp his reply was on the subject of vandalism against genetically modified crops? Does he realise that that vandalism is being committed against field trials? We will shortly be moving to whole-farm trials. How does he imagine that they will be protected from vandalism? Do the Government propose simply to stand by and wring their hands, or do they think that they must do something to protect the information that comes from the growing of genetically modified crops?

Dr. Cunningham: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear me properly. I said that such actions were deplorable, and I emphasise that yet again.
The right hon. Gentleman asks what we are going to do. The present policy position is that the grid references of all the trial sites are in the public domain. It is therefore very easy for those who want to engage in activities that the right hon. Gentleman rightly describes as unlawful to identify the locations and to destroy the crops. We are considering all the issues very carefully but, as the right hon. Gentleman must know, this too is a situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We never anticipated that people who purport to act in the interests of the environment would wilfully wreck experiments that are intended to help us to a better understanding of the environmental issues involved.

Dr. George Turner: Further to the exchanges that have just taken place, does my right

hon. Friend recognise that some of the acts of vandalism, which are completely deplorable, are being carried out in the name of national and otherwise reputable organisations such as Greenpeace? They purport to be advancing arguments that are based on rational and scientific debate, but if, in their name, people are destroying the evidence on which that debate is to take place, perhaps Ministers need to talk to those organisations to ensure that their supporters are discouraged from undertaking such vandalism.

Dr. Cunningham: I am not sure that it is accurate to ascribe those activities to Greenpeace. Nevertheless, my hope is—I express it again today—that all organisations and groups that are interested in the health and well-being of people and the environment would want to participate in an open, well-informed, scientifically accurate debate about the issues, rather than seek to involve themselves in destroying the very evidence that will help us to take the policies forward.

Correspondence

Mr. Michael Fabricant: What targets his Office has set Government departments regarding ministerial replies to correspondence received from hon. Members. [90872]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): Each Department sets its own target for replying to correspondence from hon. Members. Over the next three years, all Ministers will work towards ensuring that at least 90 per cent. of all correspondence received from hon. Members is replied to within those targets.

Mr. Fabricant: That is a hopelessly irresponsible reply. The Minister does not set the targets or even say what the individual Department's target should be—he says only that the work should be completed within three years.
In January, I wrote to the Department of Health about a problem. It was admitted that there was a problem. Eventually, at the end of June, I received a reply saying that it could do nothing about that problem. Does the Minister agree that the targets should include not only the speed of the reply but its quality? Are not the Government singularly failing to deliver replies promptly, and developing a grand canyon between promises made and performance delivered?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman should keep his hair on. He should not get excited by such things. As he well knows, each Department is responsible for the targets that it sets. The Cabinet Office has set its own targets. It has achieved a 96 per cent. success rate on those. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has written to individual Departments exhorting them to ensure that they fulfil the requirement that, within the next three years, they meet 90 per cent. of their targets.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I commend the Minister's assiduousness in trying to get Departments to live up to the targets that they set. Without wanting to be the school snitch, may I tell him that, in acknowledging a letter, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was brazen enough to say that its target was to


reply within 15 working days but that, owing to the volume of correspondence, it could not meet that and the target was now 20 working days? In fact, the reply that I received on the back of that took 40 working days. May I urge the Minister again to place some penalties on those Departments that fail to get anywhere near the target that they themselves have set?

Mr. Kilfoyle: There is some merit in the argument that there has been an increase in correspondence, which went up by 5 per cent., but I make it clear on behalf of the Government as a whole that we hold no brief for any Department that fails to meet within the required period the targets that have been set. It is in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that there are speedy responses to legitimate correspondence on matters of interest to them and their constituents.

Cabinet Joint Consultative Committee

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What recent discussions he has had with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) concerning new policy areas suitable for discussion in the Cabinet joint consultative committee. [90873]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The review of the work of the Cabinet joint consultative committee, which I am undertaking with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), includes consideration of new policy areas for discussion.

Mr. Prentice: I do not know what to think about that answer. I expected rather more. It was announced with a fanfare last November that the remit of the new Cabinet joint consultative committee, on which our Liberal Democrat comrades also sit, would be extended. I am left wondering whether the committee is hugely significant, or whether it is not worth the candle.

Dr. Cunningham: The aims of our co-operation with our Liberal Democrat colleagues are clear and simple. The Liberal Democrats have helped us to hold a more constructive and rational debate about a very important constitutional reform programme, but just at the moment their minds appear to be on other matters.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Perhaps we might get specific about the discussions that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Does he recall that the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) takes the view that one of the constitutional issues to be discussed in the Cabinet joint consultative committee should be the campaign for British entry into economic and monetary union? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the opinion that that is a constitutional issue and that it should be discussed in the committee?

Dr. Cunningham: Fortunately, although I have many responsibilities, responsibility for the statements of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy) does not feature among them.

Mr. Lansley: If the right hon. Gentleman will not help me on new policies, perhaps he will help me on

proportional representation which clearly is a matter for discussion in the joint consultative committee. In discussions with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), has the committee offered the Liberal Democrats any assurance about the timing of a referendum on proportional representation at Westminster?

Dr. Cunningham: Our discussions with the Liberal Democrats are confidential, but I hope that we may be able to help the hon. Gentleman a little more when consideration of the report is concluded.

Public Appointments

Mr. Amess: To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what recent representations he has received on the criteria for public appointments. [90874]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I receive occasional representations from hon. Members about public appointments issues.

Mr. Amess: Is the Minister aware that the fourth report from the Commissioner for Public Appointments states that an increasing number of health authority appointments are of Labour supporters? What is the Minister's view of the report's remarks about the possibility of political bias in appointments by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly? Why are so many Labour party supporters or financial backers recipients of public appointments?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that the Scots and the Welsh can speak for themselves, but the Commissioner for Public Appointments in fact lauded the progress that the Government have made. She has responded to complaints about certain national health service appointments by setting up a small scrutiny group, which she announced to the Neill committee on 15 July. The Government's policy is one of appointment on merit. The previous Government did not always adopt that approach.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my hon. Friend share my pleasure at the Government's successful attempts to increase the number of disabled people, women and people from ethnic minorities given public appointments? Does he also share my satisfaction at the decrease in the number of business people given such appointments who have no connections with the areas that they purport to represent?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I think that the commissioner would agree that the Government have increased the number of women, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities who serve on public bodies. It is certainly true that, rather than bringing people in from outside an area for political reasons, we have implemented the principle of proportionality in those appointments to ensure that they are far more representative of the population in a given area.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Would Ministers be prepared to contemplate taking appointments, such as health service appointments, out of the hands of Ministers and passing


them not to the Cabinet joint consultative committee but to an all-party forum—for example, the relevant Select Committee—where they could be scrutinised and approved in public and independently?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The arguments for appointments coming before Select Committees, analogous to the experience in America, have been well rehearsed, but there are sound reasons for not doing that. The hon. Gentleman must remember that all appointments are subject to the usual scrutiny by the Neill committee. The report of the Commissioner for Public Appointments gives due credit to the Government for the way in which they apply the Nolan principles to those appointments.

Government Modernisation

Ms Sally Keeble: If he will make a statement on progress on modernising Government. [90876]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The "Modernising Government" White Paper is the basis of our change programme to reform and modernise public services. We have already made substantial progress, and I shall shortly be publishing a document with an action plan towards meeting the commitments in the White Paper.

Ms Keeble: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he agree that an important part of modernising Government is updating employment practices and making them family friendly? What progress is being made in that regard in Government Departments and, in particular, what steps are being taken to ensure that all Departments reach the standards of the best in terms of flexible working, job sharing and all the other practices considered usual in a modern workplace?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I do agree, and we are developing a programme of more family-friendly employment policies in the civil service. It is our objective to promote best practice in all departments in the civil service and in Government agencies, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. David Prior: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Prime Minister that people working in the public service are a major barrier to change?

Dr. Cunningham: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that. He was referring to the culture and some of the management systems in our public services which are obstacles to change. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have now made it clear to the civil service unions, whose leaders I met earlier this week, that we will open negotiations with them on a formal partnership agreement, and I applaud those unions for their considerable commitment to the "Modernising Government" agenda.

European Legislation

Mrs. Diana Organ: What steps he has recently taken to improve the ways in which the United Kingdom negotiates, implements and publicises European legislation. [90877]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We have today published "The Guide to Better European Regulation". It is the result of wide consultation within both the UK and the European Union. This will ensure that Ministers and officials adhere to the principles of good regulation when developing European legislation.

Mrs. Organ: I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement of that publication today. Does he agree that that clearly demonstrates how the Government are working positively with our partners to negotiate such good deals for farmers, businesses and consumers in Britain, and that we wish to regulate through the European Union and tell the British people how we are doing it, with openness and transparency?

Dr. Cunningham: Yes, and in stark contrast to the Conservative Opposition we are determined to play a leading part at the heart of developments in Europe and not lead Britain into the isolation that the previous Administration did.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that the United Kingdom should subscribe to the theory that the Commission should do less but do what it does better? Does he also agree that Neil Kinnock, albeit a charming man, is not the right candidate to reform the EU given that he could not even reform the state aid regime for airlines throughout the EU as Transport Commissioner?

Dr. Cunningham: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Lady's question, but I profoundly disagree with the second part. Whatever the reasons for the failure to reform the regime to which she refers, they cannot be laid at the door of Neil Kinnock.

Illegal Drugs

Mr. David Lock: What progress his Department is making on tackling the use of illegal drugs by young people in Great Britain. [90878]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The UK anti-drugs co-ordinator's national plan set targets to reduce the proportion of young people using heroin and cocaine by 50 per cent. by 2008 and by 25 per cent. by 2005.

Mr. Lock: "Tackling Drugs to Build a Better Britain" identifies growing evidence that treatment works but that its supply fails in some places to meet demand. Does my hon. Friend agree with that conclusion, and what steps will the Government take over the next two years to develop effective treatment so that a person does not have to go to prison as a drug addict in order to receive it?

Mr. Kilfoyle: My hon. Friend will appreciate that our first priority was to develop a strategy with an emphasis


different to that of previous policies. The strategy focuses on the interests of young people and communities, stressing treatment and rehabilitation without forgetting that we have to choke off supply. The national plan tries to cater to individual needs in different areas through the local drug action teams. That will be an extremely effective way forward.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Following the recent drugs debate, the Minister for the Cabinet Office will be aware of concerns on both sides of the House that treatment for drug abusers can take up to 12 weeks, during which time they can become completely demotivated. Has the Minister taken any recent steps in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Health to set targets to reduce waiting times for detoxification and to ensure that there is a seamless service that is followed by rehabilitation services?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady will appreciate that one of the problems in her cri de coeur for a seamless service is that there are many different forms of treatment. We want to ensure consistency in our overall objectives, and we and the Department of Health keep these matters under constant review.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend agree that when millions of parents and others in Britain are wrestling with the problems of drug abuse among young people, and when the Government are trying to do their level best to tackle those problems, it is a sad state of affairs that the Tory Opposition receive £1 million a year from one of the biggest drug runners in the west? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not high time that the Leader of the Opposition had the guts to get rid of him?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I obviously hear what my hon. Friend says, but he will not expect me to comment on the specifics of allegations that have appeared in newspapers and elsewhere. I share—I hope that we all do—his empathy with the many parents worried about the plague of drugs that affects their children and about its effect on wider communities. He will appreciate the efforts of the enforcement agencies which are pledged to try to stem the flow of drugs into the country.

Civil Servants (Work Experience)

Fiona Mactaggart: What progress he has made in developing opportunities for civil servants to gain relevant work experience in private companies and public institutions outside the civil service. [90880]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The White Paper "Modernising Government" showed how we are promoting the exchange of people and good practice between the civil service and other organisations through the interchange initiative. Departments and agencies are on course to meet the current target of 50 per cent. of the senior civil service having experience outside Whitehall by 2005.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to hear that we are on course towards that target. Will the Minister consider giving us a report on which Departments are taking initiatives, and what those initiatives are? That would

allow us to encourage more short-term movements between public and private institutions and the civil service.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The initiative will certainly galvanise attitudes in the civil service and in outside organisations that benefit from civil service expertise. It will help towards the culture change that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has identified as the sine qua non for success in delivering modernised government. A full report will be produced on how well the interchange programme progresses Department by Department.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only relevant experience that the Labour Government seem to value is work experience with the Labour party? How else does he explain the appointment of Ian Hepplewhite as the head press officer at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—a man who was widely reported in the press as being an aide to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and celebrating at the victory party? Mr. Hepplewhite was condemned by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) as one of the 24 Labour party insiders who went to a lobbyist; he has now been appointed as a head press officer, having been a Labour party press officer for many years. He was appointed without a press notice or any other public information. Is that what the Government call valuing "impartiality, objectivity and integrity"?

Mr. Kilfoyle: There was a very loud reception for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) when he mentioned an individual. I think it is extremely sad that the right hon. Lady has named an individual on the basis—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady knows full well the terms and conditions for appointments to such posts. The byword has always been appointment on merit. People are entitled to put themselves forward for any jobs, whether as press officer, information officer or anything else. They get the position only on merit. I deplore the fact that the individual named should be maligned in the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Eric Forth: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 21 July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I met the Israeli Prime Minister and later visited Winsford in the Eddisbury constituency. Later today, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall be meeting ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Forth: With which of the views expressed on the future of the European Union by the Prime Minister's friend and protegé, Mr. Prodi, does the right hon. Gentleman disagree?

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that Mr. Prodi made a speech today with which I agree


wholeheartedly—it was a speech about the reform of the European Commission and how to make Europe more accountable. If it were not for the total anti-European obsession of the Conservative party, the Opposition might at long last find something to applaud in what he said.

Mr. Patrick Hall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a top priority for the proposed Strategic Rail Authority is to encourage the transfer of traffic from road to rail? Does he also agree that the east-west rail project that is intended to link towns and cities throughout the east and centre of England—including Bedford and Kempston—is precisely the type of imaginative scheme that the SRA ought to push forward to boost local and regional economies, and to raise the quality of life for all of us?

The Prime Minister: On the east-west rail link, I am pleased to say that my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London has been considering the proposals that have been made. She suggests looking at a phased approach that would allow sections of the proposed link to be updated and improved—delivering immediate benefits. More than that, the Strategic Rail Authority can restore order to the chaos of privatisation; in particular, it can ensure that public money is well spent after the scandal of the sale of our rail industry, at a loss of more than £5 billion—for which we have still not received an apology from the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. William Hague: The Prime Minister must know as well as anyone that the Army is now severely overstretched: 89 per cent. of its forces are committed in some way. Given the extent of those commitments and the need to back up the Regular Army, would it not now be wise to reconsider the huge reductions in the Territorial Army? The Prime Minister can ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who has just entered the Chamber.

The Prime Minister: The changes that have been made in the Territorial Army—[Interruption.] Let me remind Opposition Members that a Conservative Government cut defence spending by almost 30 per cent. and they cut the Territorial Army as well. The changes are to the benefit of the Territorial Army, which will be better used in the future. As a result of the strategic defence review that the Labour Government have undertaken, we shall have defence forces who are far better able to carry out the capabilities that we want.

Mr. Hague: The changes are obviously not to the benefit of the Territorial Army. As for lecturing us about the past, the Conservatives were maintaining the defences of this country when the right hon. Gentleman was waving a CND placard. We are talking about what is happening now. Are not the facts clear? The Army is 6,000 below strength, with more people leaving than joining and, at the same time, the Government are cutting the Territorial Army by 18,000, with the result that TA engineering battalions are being disbanded when we need more engineers. If we are not to undermine the future effectiveness of the Army, should not the Prime Minister at least postpone those decisions?

The Prime Minister: No, because the decisions were taken as a result of the strategic defence review that was

conducted with the full support of our armed forces and has been widely admired right around the world. It is as a result of what we are doing that we are able to meet the capabilities that we have set out—and will in future have better capability, especially in areas such as strategic lift—whereas the previous Conservative Government actually left us unable to carry out the capabilities we inherited.

Mr. Hague: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should listen to the Select Committee on Defence, which has a Labour majority and which said in its report:
The cuts in the TA infantry"—
and—
engineers … are shortsighted. The TA are … a valuable resource of long term insurance against the unexpected … We urge the MoD to reconsider the cuts.
That was even before this year's events in Kosovo, since when the TA infantry battalions have been cut by more than half. Would it not be in the long-term interests of this country to reconsider or postpone those huge reductions?

The Prime Minister: No, for the reason that I gave. The changes that have been made will result in our armed forces being in a better position to carry out the capabilities that we have set for them. That is not only my view, but that of the Chief of the Defence Staff. The review has been conducted with immense care. It was the first time that any Government had come in and looked at what our capabilities would be. As I said, the result of that review has not only been widely admired but is expected to be imitated around the rest of the world.
As for the performance of British troops and the Territorials in particular, I pay tribute to the way in which our armed forces have worked, especially in Kosovo, and I pay tribute to the Territorial Army. However, just as changes were made when the Conservatives were in government, it is important that we make changes. The difference is that we are making them with the full agreement of the armed forces.

Ms Dari Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating a group of women from my constituency who are driving a truck full of aid to Kosovo? Will he reassure the House that the Government are responding to the support aid agencies that are helping refugees, who often have only the clothes in which they stand?

The Prime Minister: I thank all elements of the voluntary sector. People in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout the country, in community groups, church groups and the voluntary sector, have raised an immense amount of money for Kosovo and have sent out a lot of aid and help to the people there. Britain can be immensely proud, not only of our armed forces, but of the contribution that the people of this country have made to the people of Kosovo.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Ashdown. [Interruption.]

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Yes, yes, I shall miss you all too.
I am reluctant at this late stage to try the patience of the House by returning to an issue that I have raised several times. However, having returned this morning


from Pristina, I ask the Prime Minister to recognise that, although we won the war at no inconsiderable cost, it is important that we do not lose the peace. There is a race on in Kosovo between order and disorder, and disorder has made a flying start. In that context, I remind the Prime Minister of the international promise to have 3,000 police officers in Kosovo—there are only 70 there now. Into that vacuum, criminality and political intimidation are moving fast. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that no stone will be left unturned in the effort to move the British contingent out there fast and that he will urge his alliance partners to do the same?

The Prime Minister: I certainly will give that assurance. We have been urging many of our partners to recognise—particularly in relation to troop movements—the importance of getting our forces to Kosovo as quickly as possible. I believe that the conference that will be held on 30 July in Sarajevo will provide an opportunity to make good the promises that we made during the Kosovo conflict. We made those promises not merely to the people of Kosovo, but to the surrounding front-line states and the Balkans region. I intend to make good the promises that this Government and this country made.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for that assurance. However, this is a practical matter. Those policemen are needed on the streets of Kosovo today and there has already been a delay. I ask the Prime Minister to solve this puzzle. He will undoubtedly agree that the professionalism of the average British police officer would be of considerable advantage in Kosovo, where our police officers could make a considerable contribution. Why, therefore, has the Home Office decided that, because the Kosovo police will be armed, British police can perform only purely administrative duties? If British policemen can be armed in special circumstances in Manchester, why can they not be armed in Kosovo?

The Prime Minister: The decision on exactly how the British police forces will be used will be taken on the ground. That is a matter best left to the people on the ground to decide, rather than trying to decide it here. British police officers are ready to go to Kosovo and we are trying to clear obstacles there rather than here to facilitate their relocation. As for troops, we have troops stationed in Kosovo and we want to ensure that other countries make a contribution as well.
As this is the right hon. Gentleman's last Question Time, I pay tribute to the tremendous contribution that he has made to British politics in the past few years, not least on Kosovo and Bosnia, where he was well ahead of the rest of us and right long before the rest of us.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Prime Minister believe that those patients who suffer from multiple sclerosis, the side-effects of chemotherapy or other chronic pain should be prosecuted and jailed for using medicinal cannabis?

The Prime Minister: The same regime applies to those people as to any others. Penalties are a matter for the courts, which will take account of all circumstances. I really cannot comment further except to say that I do not believe that it would be right to change the law in relation to cannabis.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: The retirement of a leader brings many changes—

[HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."] Je ne regrette rien. The retirement of a leader brings many changes, not least for the retiring leader. In light of the Sutherland report about the provision of care for the elderly, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others will be able to enjoy the benefits of long-term residential care—when the time comes—without having to sell their houses to pay for it?

The Prime Minister: I suspect that it is just as well for the hon. Gentleman's future in this place that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is retiring.
As to the Sutherland report, we have already acted on some of the royal commission's recommendations. For example, we have improved services for carers by allocating £140 million over three years to help fund more respite care. We are extending direct payments for people aged 65 and over and we have announced our intention to establish a proper commission for care standards, as soon as parliamentary time allows, so that residential and nursing homes can be regulated and inspected by an independent agency.
As for the funding of long-term care, we are considering both majority and minority report recommendations. We want to put an end, so far as is humanly possible, to the situation where people face either poverty in old age or selling their homes to pay nursing care costs. We must do that in a financially responsible way and we will make our position clear in due course.

Mr. David Taylor: Will the Prime Minister's holiday reading include the 1999 United Nations human development report, which recently noted that income inequality in the mid-1990s in the United Kingdom was greater than in any other developed country? Does he share my concern about that leaden, not golden, Tory legacy? Will he encourage our Government to bridge the chasm that exists between the rich and the poor in our land as rapidly as possible?

The Prime Minister: Our desire to do that is our reason for introducing the new deal, which is the largest ever programme for the long-term unemployed, which is opposed by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the working families tax credit, which gives help to 1.5 million low-income families and which would be scrapped by the Conservatives. It is the reason for the minimum wage, which would also be scrapped by the Conservatives, and for the £100 bonus for pensioners, which is opposed by the Conservatives. Those are all policies that will help to reduce inequalities in this country, and that is a good and right new Labour message.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: The operational assumptions that underlay the strategic defence review were wholly exaggerated, as demonstrated following the deployment to Kosovo. The strategic defence review cut £500 million from the defence budget. How can the Prime Minister reconcile that cut to the budget with the overstretch that our armed forces are now facing?

The Prime Minister: First, we have, through the strategic defence review, enhanced our main capabilities, which is important. Secondly, as I said earlier, the review


was carried forward with the consent and support of people in the defence and armed forces because they recognised that the services had to modernise. That stands in sharp contrast to the previous Conservative Government, who conducted no proper review and who cut spending, as I said, by over 30 per cent.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he will introduce the promised legislation on the funding of political parties? Will he ensure that those proposals include safeguards to address the understandable public concern about the funding of a major political party by a UN ambassador to a foreign country?

The Prime Minister: I am pleased to say that a draft Bill will be presented to the House next week. As part of our commitment, we shall ban foreign donations and ensure that donations over £5,000 are disclosed. We should not forget that the legislation has been brought about by the recommendations of the Neill committee, and that the Conservative party, when in government, consistently blocked any independent inquiry into public financing.

Mr. William Hague: After the events surrounding formula one and fox hunting, we can see that in only one party is a large donation followed by a change in policy, and that is in the Labour party.
Figures released by the House of Commons Library today reveal that average class sizes throughout the country have risen in the past two years. Will the Prime Minister now admit that when he said at Question Time last week, "class sizes are falling", a true statement would have been, "class sizes have risen"?

The Prime Minister: That is wrong. Class sizes have fallen. For the first time in 10 years, we are seeing falls in primary school class sizes. When the right hon. Gentleman quoted primary school figures to me last week, he took the figure for one key stage and omitted all the rest. If one takes all the figures together, one sees that primary school class sizes are falling, and so are class sizes overall.

Mr. Hague: I asked the Library to take together figures for all primary schools, nursery schools and secondary schools, and the answer is that average class sizes have risen in the past two years. That is here in black and white, and the right hon. Gentleman can have the figures. Why does he not read out the Government's own figures for average class sizes, not only for five to seven-year-olds, but for nursery, junior and secondary school classes? Class sizes have stayed the same for five to seven-year-olds and they have risen for every other age group. Why does the Prime Minister not read out the figures?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong; I shall give him the figures. For the first time in 10 years, class sizes in primary schools are falling. For the first time in five years, overall average class sizes in all maintained primary and secondary schools in England fell between January 1998 and January 1999—since the general election. More than that, as a result of our phasing out of the assisted places scheme, there will be an extra

160,000 five, six and seven-year-olds in classes of fewer than 30. The right hon. Gentleman's party is committed to reintroducing the assisted places scheme and getting rid of the money for the reduction in class sizes. If that is not so, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say so now.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister does not want to read out the figures because they show that class sizes have risen. He promised smaller class sizes in all classes to the whole country. It is even written on one of his famous mugs. I will show him one; it says: "Smaller Class Sizes". It does not say that for five, six and seven-year-olds. [Interruption.] I know that he wants to see the back of his mugs, but he will have to wait for the reshuffle—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I want to see the mug and hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Hague: All that the mug says on the bottom is:
This product needs warm, soapy water".
When the Prime Minister publishes the Government's annual report next week, will he skip the warm, soapy water and explain to people that on this, as on so many other things, he has broken his election promise?

The Prime Minister: There is only one mug in this place. We know the difference between the two parties. The right hon. Gentleman prefers the assisted places scheme to reducing class sizes for five, six and seven-year-olds. When the annual report is published next week, it will show the fact that, for the first time in years, class sizes are falling; that hospital waiting lists are down; that unemployment is down; that we have the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years; that crime is down.
What the report will not show, but what I shall tell the House now, is the difference between the Labour party and the Conservative party. We are introducing, through the largest ever investment in schools, better schools for all our children. The Tory party opposes that extra investment and opposes the money for smaller class sizes, and that is because it is happy to stand for fox hunting and hereditary peers. When it comes to the minimum wage and class sizes, we need a Labour Government.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any consideration of the problems of public transport should start from recognition of the Conservatives' 18 years of underinvestment and neglect? Does he agree that, although the additional £517 million announced last week for the London underground is very welcome, the Government must do far more to put right the legacy? Will he assure the House that they will take all necessary steps to increase investment and modernise in order to make the public transport system something of which we can truly be proud?

The Prime Minister: Again, there is an important difference between Labour and the previous Conservative Government. Our proposals for London underground mean an extra £500 million funding for it. We propose to increase by 30 per cent. funding for the railway system. On roads maintenance, we are due to spend an extra


£900 million. The truth is that we inherited a chaotic, underfunded system from the Conservative Government, but under this Government, it will, step by step, get better.

Mr. Tom Brake: The Prime Minister will soon be setting off on a well-deserved holiday. As he sits in the VIP lounge at Heathrow or Gatwick airport, would he care to read the report "The Future of National Air Traffic Services"? It says that the Government should
re-evaluate its proposals for Public Private Partnership
for National Air Traffic Services
to ensure that they are entirely compatible with the safe and expeditious movement of air traffic",
and that
any decision to opt for a Public Private Partnership
for NATS
should be deferred until the Swanwick Centre is opened.
Does the Prime Minister agree with me, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, an ex-Transport Minister in his Government and many Labour Back Benchers that he should deal with safety first, and get the Swanwick centre up and running before breaking his pre-election promise on NATS in the pursuit of profit and privatisation?

The Prime Minister: A public-private partnership is precisely what we did promise, and of course we shall look very carefully at what the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and other Committees say about this. However, we must get not just the best value for money—safety obviously does come first—but the best system for the future. I do not think that involving private sector management in these situations is necessarily wrong, but we shall, of course, evaluate the matter and do the best thing.

Ms Linda Perham: May I welcome the meeting that my right hon. Friend had this morning with the Prime Minister of Israel? Can he comment on those discussions and say how the Government can assist Israel and its neighbours in securing a peace of the brave?

The Prime Minister: I was very impressed by the degree to which the new Prime Minister of Israel was determined to take forward not just the Palestinian track, but the Syrian track, and to try to get a lasting settlement in the middle east. For our part, we have said that we shall give Israel every support that we can in achieving a proper and just settlement, which recognises the need for justice and the security needs. I was pleased that the new Prime Minister of Israel felt that Britain and, indeed, the European Union could play a part in trying to bring about peace in the middle east, and we shall certainly be happy to do so.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Prime Minister at all concerned that one of his Back Benchers, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Bradley), is prepared to abuse parliamentary privilege to smear a man who cannot answer back?

Does he now acknowledge that the United States State Department has stated that it has never raised any concerns about the conduct of Michael Ashcroft with either Belize or British Ministers? Will he not instead condemn his hon. Friend for abusing his position when he was a member of Westminster city council planning department, when he voted against a planning application by Waitrose in preference to one by Safeway, which just happened to be one of his clients?

The Prime Minister: There is a very simple response to the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative party can refer this entire case to the Neill committee. So why does it not do so? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that serious charges against another hon. Member must be made by tabling a motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Martin Salter: Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister genuinely believe that the bipartisan approach to the Northern Ireland peace process is still alive, or does he share the view of some Labour Members that there are elements within the British Conservative party that have done all that they can to undermine the progress that we have made during the past 18 months?

The Prime Minister: I would simply say that I hope very much that the bipartisan approach is maintained, because Northern Ireland should not be an issue of party politics. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It was not when we were in opposition. I hope very much that bipartisanship is maintained, because it is in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland that it should be.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Prime Minister recall saying, on "Question Time" on 8 July,
The point I am making is we've still got far too many people waiting to see a consultant and on the waiting list"?
He went on to promise significant improvement by the time of the next election. Given that the number of people waiting who have been referred by a general practitioner to a consultant has doubled in the two years since the Prime Minister was elected, will he now undertake to publish monthly figures not only for waiting lists, but for those waiting for the waiting lists, so that the British people can see what is happening?

The Prime Minister: Again the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. Waiting lists have come down under the present Government. Waiting times have also come down. In relation to out-patient lists, this year, we have treated 200,000 more people than last year—far more than the previous Conservative Government did. And yes, it will take time, but we have introduced NHS Direct. An investment of £21 billion is being made in the health service, opposed by the Conservative party. We are renovating every accident and emergency department in


the country. We are introducing new cancer services. We have 7,000 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses coming in. Yes, it will take time, but the health service will get better under the present Government, not least because we, unlike the Conservative party, believe in it.

Mr. David Lock: As the minds of hon. Members turn towards their holidays, does my right hon. Friend agree that they will be joined this year by an extra 2.5 million people, who are getting paid holidays for the first time? Does he recall that Conservative Members, when in government, decided to oppose in the courts British people having paid holidays, rather than letting them go on those holidays? Does he

agree that one effect of that opposition is that the British public will give Conservative Members a long time on holiday and out of government?

The Prime Minister: That is what they deserve. The Conservative party is opposed to the proposals for holiday leave. It is opposed to the minimum wage. It is opposed to any basic standards in the workplace. It is opposed to the working families tax credit—that boost to 1.5 million low-income families. It is opposed to it because the true one nation party of British politics today is on the Government side of the House of Commons. The Conservative party, as is obvious, is increasingly extreme, divided and out of touch.

Librarian (Retirement)

Madam Speaker: I have some information to give the House. I have received a letter from the Librarian indicating her wish to retire at the end of the year. I will arrange for the text of the letter to be printed in the Official Report.
Miss Jennifer Tanfield has worked in the Library for 36 years, the last six as our Librarian. During that time, of course, the Library has greatly expanded its services to meet the requirements of Members, and has been through a period of great technological change and development, as I am sure all of us know and appreciate. I know that Members of all parties will join me in thanking Miss Tanfield for her long and devoted service to the House. We wish her a long and happy retirement. I take this opportunity also of expressing our appreciation of the assistance provided to us by the Library as a whole.
Miss Tanfield will retire on 31 December, and I would like to announce to the House today that I have appointed Miss Priscilla Baines, currently the Library's Director of Human Resources and Deputy Librarian, to succeed her.
Following is the Librarian's letter:
Dear Madam Speaker
I am writing to confirm my decision to retire on 31 December 1999. I joined the Library in September 1963, so by December I will have served the House for more than 36 years, the last six of them as Librarian.
It is difficult on this occasion not to refer to all the changes that have taken place since I arrived, just after the Library's first photocopying machine. Today's electronic scanners and the computers on all our desks underline how much both technology and the methods of delivering information to users have developed. But I would also like to mention the things that have not changed. Working in the service of the House has been a great privilege. always interesting, always challenging—perhaps the only moments of boredom were when required to study the guide to National Accounts Statistics as a new Library Clerk. It has been a pleasure to work with so many Members of Parliament and I am grateful for their support of the Library and kindness to me personally. One of the continuing delights has been the calibre of my colleagues, in the Library, in other departments of the Commons and in the Lords and also those providing information services in parliaments throughout the world. And I still get a thrill every time I walk through the lovely Members' Library.
When you appointed me as Librarian I took over responsibility for a department whose services were highly valued by Members and other users. The challenge was to maintain the quality of the service without putting undue demands on the resources of the House. There is evidence that, thanks to the hard work and dedication of the Library staff, the challenge has been met and the service continues to be greatly appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Jennifer Tanfield
Librarian

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I know, Madam Speaker, that the whole House will want to join in the tribute that you have paid to Miss Tanfield, who has given the House such long and devoted service. Indeed, it is my understanding that there are only about eight Members who were Members before she arrived here. She has also seen 17 Leaders of the House come and go, and I am delighted to be the one who is able to pay tribute to her on her own departure.
I know that we are all grateful for the professionalism of the Librarian and of all her colleagues, particularly given the large influx of new Members of all parties in May 1997. That is something which deserves a specific mention. We are all grateful, too, for the research papers that the Library produces, on which so many Members rely in providing an effective service.
There have been enormous changes during Miss Tanfield's tenure of office, with which she and her staff have coped admirably. I am sure that the entire House wishes her a very long and happy retirement.

Sir George Young: On behalf of the Opposition, I associate myself, Madam Speaker, with your remarks and those of the Leader of the House. Opposition parties have particular reason to be grateful for the services provided by the Library. Indeed, they were used only a few moments ago.
The development of the standard notes, putting more information on the intranet, and training Members to use Library services more efficiently have all been welcome initiatives introduced under the leadership of Miss Tanfield. The Library has coped with a dramatic explosion in demands on its services. It receives about 60,000 inquiries a year. We pay tribute to the work of Miss Tanfield and of the Library and we wish her a long and happy retirement.

Mr. Richard Allan: As Chair of the Select Committee on Information, I should like to express the Committee's sincere thanks and appreciation to Jennifer Tanfield for her work for the Committee and the House since 1993. She has successfully overseen a time of great change in the Library and placed it firmly at the forefront of developing new technology for the House and the wider public. The Library has done a great deal to provide information to the citizens of the country.
As well as being a repository of books and papers, the Library is a major research organisation and provider of information on the intranet. That is all done in a helpful and friendly way, so that those who still have panic attacks at the thought of programming videos can nevertheless receive an efficient, effective and helpful service from our Library staff. As a measure of the success of Miss Tanfield's stewardship, in a recent survey hon. Members gave the Library 8.9 out of 10 as a rating of their satisfaction with the Library services.
Jenny Tanfield leaves the Library in excellent shape, and we on the Information Committee look forward to working with her successor, Priscilla Baines.
I make these comments also on behalf of my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Mr. Tony Benn: May I briefly add my appreciation of the work of Jennifer Tanfield, on behalf of all the Members who have used the Library over many, many years? She has been an outstanding Librarian and custodian of the collective experience of the human race.
Libraries represent the one natural resource that is expanding all the time. Oil and coal decline, but knowledge expands. Visiting the Victoria tower, as I have done, and seeing the scrolls written on parchment with quill pens, which are part of the history of Parliament, we are reminded that if we do not know our history, we do not know where we came from or where we are going.


Anyone who has been up the Victoria tower will appreciate that so much has changed, but so little has changed, too.
I look forward to the Freedom of Information Act, as I am one of the Members who do not see why I should have to wait 30 years to discover what is going on. If the Freedom of Information Act were introduced, the Library would have access to more recent information.
May I express my deep appreciation to Jennifer Tanfield who, not only in the Library, but as chair of the librarians of the Parliaments of the world, has made such an outstanding contribution to the work of the House?

Mr. Barry Sheerman: It would be remiss of the House not to express our appreciation of Jennifer Tanfield's work. I know of her work both in the House and outside. As a fellow graduate of the London School of Economics, I know that she has been active in a different cause.
Jennifer Tanfield has turned our Library into the leading-edge library of all European Parliaments through the way in which it has progressed the use of information technology for Members and many others, including scholars.
You, Madam Speaker, as I hope the House remembers, were our first woman Speaker. Jennifer Tanfield was our first woman Librarian.

Madam Speaker: I appointed her.

Mr. Sheerman: Indeed. I am delighted that Miss Tanfield's successor will be a good woman, too.

Points of Order

Madam Speaker: Before I deal with today's points of order, I shall deal with one other matter. I need to respond to points of order made to me yesterday.
I regret that there appears to be continuing confusion in the minds of some hon. Members about the effect of the motion relating to the Railways Bill that was passed on Monday night by the House.
The motion before us that night was debated and agreed to, and the Bill was referred to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It is now for that Committee, which I understand met this morning, to consider the provisions of the Bill. The Committee may make recommendations about the content of the Bill. It does not, however, have the power to make amendments to the Bill.
What may or may not become of the Bill after the Committee completes its work is certainly not a matter for me. That is a matter for the Government. Hon. Members who wish to pursue the further handling of the Bill should do so through the usual channels or through business questions.
Now that I have clarified the situation once more—not for the first time, but once more—I hope that hon. Members will not seek to draw the Chair into what is essentially a political dispute about the handling of legislation. May I say to those hon. Members who may remain dissatisfied with the procedures of the House that they are at liberty to make representations to the Select Committee on Procedure or to the Select Committee on Modernisation?

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Further to your ruling on that matter, Madam Speaker, which I did not know you were going to make—

Madam Speaker: I was asked to make a ruling.

Mr. Howarth: I did not realise that you would make a ruling today, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I always do things very speedily.

Mr. Howarth: Indeed, Madam Speaker. You always satisfy the requirements of the House.
As the Member responsible for ensuring that the motion was debated in the House on Monday—I objected to it last week—may I ask you for some clarification? Given that you have said that the Committee cannot amend the Bill, although it may comment on it, will there be another debate on Second Reading when the Bill comes back to the House, and will it go on Report; or is that in the hands of the House itself?

Madam Speaker: That is what I have just said. What may or may not become of the Bill after the Committee completes its work is certainly not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Howarth: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Last month, I raised the matter of the soldiers whose names were revealed by the Saville inquiry into


the events in Londonderry in January 1972. I said on the Floor of the House that their statements, which were given in confidence in 1972, had been released to the lawyers representing the families of those who were killed in Londonderry. The inquiry put out a statement that day, in effect rebutting what I said, but also saying that it was looking into the matter.
Today, the inquiry has issued a press release confirming that it has released the names of those soldiers—who served our country and put their lives at risk—for the first time since 1972, putting them into the public domain.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker. The inquiry is incompetent, but given that the Prime Minister has told me in a letter that the matter is nothing to do with him, even though he set up the inquiry, how on earth am I able to challenge that incompetence? Former members of the Parachute Regiment around the country and my constituents who are former members of the Parachute Regiment have absolutely no confidence whatever in the inquiry, but if I cannot tackle its incompetence through ministerial offices, how am I to deal with this matter, which is causing great expense to the public and seriously undermining confidence in the inquiry's fairness?

Madam Speaker: I want to be as helpful as I can to the hon. Gentleman. May I consider what he has said and look at the report and the press release, which I have not seen and to which he refers me? May I take the opportunity of writing fully to him after I have considered all those aspects?

Mr. Howarth: I am most grateful.

Mr. Quentin Davies: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Convention and statute law give the House a number of privileges. I know that you, and almost all Members of the House, feel strongly that it is important for the dignity and effectiveness of Parliament that those privileges should not be abused. One of those privileges is immunity from suits of libel or slander relating to what is said in the House. I am afraid that the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) a few moments ago, in which he accused a private citizen of being a drug runner without adducing any evidence whatever, were indeed an abuse of that kind.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been in the Chair since 2.30. I have heard exchanges across the Floor of the

House involving Members of both sides of the House which I strongly deprecate. We should remember the wise words of Erskine May:
Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
We should not be abusive, as we have been today. I deprecate very strongly the accusations that have been made from all parts of the House.

Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will know that I was one of a number of Members who inquired about the procedure for the handling of the Railways Bill. I, among others, am very grateful for the guidance that you have given, and I understand that it is for the Government to decide on the future handling of Bills, but is it anticipated that there will be published or stated criteria according to which there will be either one or more than one debate on the Second Reading of a Bill? If Members do not know in advance whether there will be one or two debates on Second Reading, it will be very difficult for them to make any sort of judgment about the opportunities that they will have to contribute.

Madam Speaker: As I thought I had explained in my very long answer to points of order, those are questions that could be put to the Leader of the House at business questions, or through the usual channels across the Floor of the House.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS (INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS)

Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Harold Best, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. Llew Smith, Audrey Wise, Mr. Mike Wood, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Bill Etherington and Mrs. Maria Fyfe, presented a Bill to make provision for the implementation in the laws of the United Kingdom of the rights in employment which are established by certain international instruments ratified by the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 146].

Work With Asbestos

Mr. Harry Cohen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create new offences relating to negligent or malicious practice involving work with asbestos; to increase the penalties available to the courts for existing offences; to confer new powers on the Health and Safety Executive; to amend the law with regard to the employment rights of health and safety representatives; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is a sponsor of this Bill, for providing me with details of the film "DOA"—Dead on Arrival. In the opening scene, a man enters a police station and says, "I have come to report a murder." When asked who has been murdered, he replies, "I have."
Tens of thousands of men in Britain and across Europe could do the same, because they have been exposed to asbestos dust, often through the negligence and malpractice of their employers and contractors. In this country, there are an estimated 3,000 asbestos-related deaths a year: from asbestosis, asbestos-related lung cancer and mesothelioma, a particularly nasty and painful form of cancer, for which prognosis for any form of recovery is very poor.
At a conference on asbestos-related diseases in 1997, Dr. John Moore-Gillon said:
People with mesothelioma all die, usually after a few months of increasing pain and breathlessness. There can be no condition which is more distressing for the patient, relatives and to the completely powerless doctor, as those individuals plough inexorably downhill.
Current projects based on a paper in The Lancet entitled "The continuing increase in mesothelioma mortality in Britain" suggest that, in 10 years' time, such deaths among men could range from 1,000 to 2,100; in 20 years' time, from 1,300 to 3,000; and in 30 years' time, from 1,000 to 3,200. The ratio of other asbestos-related deaths to mesothelioma is currently 2:1. On just a 1:1 ratio, Professor Julian Peto has estimated that, in the next 35 years, asbestos-related cancer will kill 500,000 men in western Europe.
Asbestos-related deaths have a long latency period—anything from 15 to 60 years from exposure to the deadly dust—so many of the murders of those who are still alive cannot be stopped. However, we can act now for the future. Many trade unions and health and public safety campaigners have long pressed for the law to be strengthened. To their credit, the Government have done that in a number of respects: they have introduced tighter regulations on asbestos licensing and exposure at work; and they have been negotiating hard for a Europe-wide ban on white chrysotile asbestos. Safer substitutes have now been scientifically established, so I hope that there will not be much more of a delay before white asbestos is banned in Britain and throughout the EU. If the date set for a total EU ban is some years ahead, I hope that that will not stop the Government announcing an immediate ban in this country.
Campaigners have also rightly pointed to the inadequacy of sentences delivered by the courts in cases involving negligent or malicious work with asbestos which places the lives and health of workers or innocent members of the public at risk. In a parliamentary answer

to me in April, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), said:
I am concerned that the general level of penalties imposed by the Courts for Health and Safety offences, including those related to asbestos, do not match their seriousness, especially given that lives are being put at risk."—[Official Report, 27 April 1999; Vol. 330, c.91.]
The Minister was being too polite. Many of the sentences have been derisory, and despite the fact that some bigger fines have been imposed, judges still seem out of touch. They fail to see the gravity of the offence and continue to assess life far too cheaply. They have also been reluctant to imprison asbestos cowboys, even where the crime has been blatant.
The first ever custodial sentence—three months—on a cowboy contractor for serious breaches of asbestos regulations was passed on Roy Hill by Bristol Crown court in January 1996. The second one, and the longest to date—nine months—was handed down to Paul Anthony Evans by Birmingham Crown court in September 1998. Despite not having a licence, Evans subcontracted the stripping of a factory roof of asbestos and its disposal. He hired a van and dumped 300 sacks of asbestos around the city. The court was told that some of the bags had been left open and others had burst on inspection, releasing the asbestos fibres into the air. Children were found playing with the asbestos, some of which had been dumped on a school playground and some near a supermarket. I do not think—nor, I suspect, do most members of the public, especially people in Birmingham—that nine months' imprisonment was a sufficient sentence.
Mr. Justice Scott Baker, in an important Court of Appeal judgment last November, set out for the first time a range of factors for determining penalties. However, as in earlier judgments, he still managed to reduce the penalty imposed on the guilty party. It is hard to believe, but those were advances.
Earlier this year, there was a significant setback in the shape of the judgment in the case of the Medley brothers—Neil Peter Medley and Andrew Craig Medley. Their company, Medleys Limited, employed schoolboys to remove asbestos tiles from the ceiling of AE Turbines of Yeadon, Leeds. They employed two 15-year-olds and a 14-year-old for that work, and they also pleaded guilty to undertaking asbestos work in an old boiler house without a licence, failing to leave the premises in a clean state to prevent the spread of the asbestos, and placing employees at risk during work at a school by not properly maintaining records or medical surveillance. About 60 other charges were ordered to lie on the file. Neil Medley was ordered to do 240 hours of community service and pay £4,000 costs, and his brother was given half that penalty.
That was a grossly inadequate sentence. The judge, John Cockcroft, said that he could not send them to prison as, he claimed, the maximum punishment allowed by health and safety laws was an unlimited fine. He said:
Only time will tell in relation to cases of this sort whether disease caused by exposure to asbestos will cause Parliament to look again at the maximum sentences for these offences.
The Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians expressed its horror at the leniency of the sentence. George Brumwell, its general secretary, said:
We believe the sentence is an insult to the thousands of asbestos victims and their families. This case illustrates that the law must be toughened up so that punishments received for health and safety crimes match the nature of the crime. Asbestos kills people.


UCATT drew attention to the Turin court decision three years ago when nine owner-managers of the Societa Italiana Amianto asbestos factory were jailed for terms of between seven months and eight years, and ordered to pay personal compensation totalling £6 million. They were found guilty of murdering 32 workers and causing the occupational diseases of the 11 still alive. Mr. Brumwell said:
This level of punishment would make a real difference in attitudes of employers in this country.
My Bill would increase the range of penalties, including imprisonment, for those organising work with asbestos who place another person's health or life at risk by undertaking negligent or malicious practices in the performance of that work. It would strengthen the powers of the Health and Safety Executive in the investigation of suspected breaches of asbestos law and regulations. Any obstruction of the HSE's investigations would be a crime with stiff penalties in its own right. It would introduce offences of corporate neglect and corporate malevolent practice whereby the directors of a company organising work with asbestos, which places another person's life or health at risk by negligence or malicious practice, would also be subject to penalties, including possible imprisonment.
I favour the enactment of the Law Commission's 1994 proposed reform of manslaughter law. It proposed three new offences—reckless killing, killing by gross carelessness and corporate killing. My Bill nods in that direction for asbestos offences.
My Bill would also increase penalties for offences under the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920. The maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding £1,000 for employing a child in an industrial undertaking is far too low. It should be an imprisonable offence to employ any child on work with asbestos.
The Attorney-General has the right to appeal what he considers too lenient sentences. However, according to the Lord Chancellor, that does not apply to health and safety asbestos cases. My Bill would extend that right of appeal. It would also require the Lord Chancellor to arrange specific training courses for all judges who are likely to deal with asbestos cases, explaining the sentences available to them.
I know that Ministers were deeply disappointed by the Medley judgment, and are still actively considering how to respond. My Bill comes at the end of this parliamentary Session, so it will not make progress on this occasion. However, it points the way, and I hope that more realistic sentences that reflect the deadly seriousness of asbestos abuse will be enacted in the not too distant future.

Madam Speaker: Order. I have been indicating the digital clock for some time.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Nick Ainger, Mr. Michael Clapham, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Tom Cox, Mr. Neil Gerrard, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Helen Jackson, Mr. Gerald Kaufman, Mr. John Smith, Dr. Howard Stoate and Mr. Tony Worthington.

WORK WITH ASBESTOS

Mr. Harry Cohen accordingly presented a Bill to create new offences relating to negligent or malicious practice involving work with asbestos; to increase the penalties available to the courts for existing offences; to confer new powers on the Health and Safety Executive; to amend the law with regard to the employment rights of health and safety representatives; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 147].

Orders of the Day — Access to Justice Bill [Lords]

Lords Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Commons amendments considered.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz): I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendments Nos. 27 to 30, to which the Lords have disagreed.
Lords Reason:
Because it is not appropriate for the Legal Services Commission itself to provide advice, assistance or representation to individuals involved in criminal investigations or criminal proceedings.

Madam Speaker: With this we shall take Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Vaz: The amendments would reinstate powers for employees of the Legal Services Commission to provide advice, assistance and representation as part of the Criminal Defence Service. They would enable the commission to develop a mixed system for the provision of the full range of criminal defence services, through both salaried defenders and contracts with lawyers in private practice.
When the Bill first came before the House, it had been denuded of the power to provide services in this way as a result of action taken in another place in support of—it has to be said—blatant vested interests. The House wisely reinstated provisions that would give the commission the greatest flexibility to provide cost-effective services, and to provide a wider choice for the public.
As the House will know, a public defence solicitors' office has been operating in Scotland on a pilot basis since October last year. That office is already finding that 22 per cent. of its clients are choosing its services in preference to those of people in private practice. The remainder of its clients are allocated randomly between the private and the employed sector.
What the Bill proposes does not involve allocation; it is based on freedom of choice. It seems, however, that some in the private sector fear the competition that freedom of choice will introduce. It is surprising, to say the least, to find the principal opponents of choice in the other place on the Liberal Democrat Benches. The other place has now rejected these proposals twice. On the second occasion, it did so when it enjoyed the explicit backing of this House, which is directly responsible to the electorate who might wish to take advantage of the services involved. That cannot be the role envisaged for a revising Chamber.
I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) is present. I am sure that he will advance the arguments of his party, and will explain why its members voted as they did in the other place.
The issue of salaried defenders has been the subject of widespread debate in both this House and another place, and also outside Parliament. I was very pleased to see early-day motion 840 on today's Order Paper. The motion, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for

Hendon (Mr. Dismore), has already been signed by 59 hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell).
When listening to debates such as this, I have had occasion to wonder whether the opponents of the provisions really understand what they are opposing.

Mr. Edward Garnier: No doubt as a result of some oversight, the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who initiated that early-day motion, does not appear to be here to listen to the Parliamentary Secretary. For the benefit of the many Members who are listening to him, would he be good enough to recite the terms of the early-day motion, so that we could come to grips with it and see precisely what he supports and what the hon. Member for Hendon is so keen on?

Mr. Vaz: I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has a special relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon. I will leave that to one side. He has a pair of legs. I am sure that he can trot off to the Vote Office, get a copy of the Vote—which we are all entitled to do—and read it for himself.
There are those who seem to think that the criminal defence service is synonymous with a United States-style public defender office. In fact, it refers to the flexible system that will replace criminal legal aid, which will provide criminal defence services through a mix of salaried defenders and lawyers in private practice.
It is emphatically not the Government's intention to introduce a comprehensive public defender system. We have made that clear on a number of occasions, yet unfavourable comparisons are drawn with public defender systems in other countries, rather than with mixed systems such as those in Canada.
There has been debate about the independence and ethical standards of salaried defenders, but little acknowledgement of clause 37, which places the overriding ethical duties of all advocates and litigators on a statutory footing; or of clause 16, which provides for a code of conduct specifically for salaried defenders.
Furthermore, the Legal Services Commission will be an independent non-departmental body. There is simply no danger of collusion between its employees and the prosecution, and perhaps less risk of an appearance, or perception, of collusion than where two barristers from the same chambers appear on opposite sides.
Lawyers in Britain are rightly proud of their integrity and independence, but that independence flows from their membership of a profession and their obedience to the ethical rules that their profession enforces, not from the way in which they are paid. It is fallacious and an insult to thousands of employed lawyers to seek to equate "independent practice" with the independence needed to advise and to act for a client.
Salaried defenders will give the public a wider choice of representative. They will provide the Legal Services Commission with the means to assess value for money provided by criminal defence services generally. They will increase the commission's flexibility in the provision of criminal defence services and provide a competitive stimulus to lawyers in private practice.
The state is under no obligation to guarantee to the private profession that it, and it alone, may provide publicly funded legal defence services. Given that high


standards will be maintained, the public will gain from the introduction of salaried defenders as part of a mixed system of legal service provision.
International research shows that mixed systems, with salaried defenders operating alongside private lawyers, can be the most successful way in which to provide criminal defence services. That is the view of Bar associations, including the Canadian Bar Association and the American Bar Association. It is advocated by official bodies such as the Legal Services Corporation in America and the National Legal Aid Advisory Committee in Australia.
We will learn from the overseas and Scottish experience as we introduce salaried defenders in England and Wales. We also intend to consult widely before taking any steps. After that, the Legal Services Commission will establish pilot projects to test and to evaluate different models for providing services through salaried defenders. We would start with small pilots and monitor them precisely to see how effective the arrangements were. The pilot projects would be extended throughout the country only after we had had experience of salaried defenders in practice. Decisions will therefore be taken on the basis of evidence, not prejudice and assumption.
Alternative amendment (e) broadens the scope of clause 15(9), which currently provides that regulations may not require someone to select an employee of the commission as his or her representative. If amended as I propose, the subsection would also catch employees of separate bodies established and maintained by the commission to provide salaried criminal defence services. We intend to test both models—direct employment and separately maintained bodies akin to law centres—in the pilots.
I should also make it clear that, within the commission, salaried defenders will work within a separate organisational unit or units, reporting to a senior lawyer responsible for managing them in a way that respects and protects their professional integrity. They will not have additional responsibilities for any other of the commission's functions. They will be employed as criminal defenders, and I have no doubt at all that, as such, they will dedicate themselves to defending their clients with the same professional skill, judgment, and fearless independence and integrity as would any lawyer in the private sector.
Alternative amendments (a) and (c) are intended to give a better flavour of that. Rather than saying that the commission may itself provide advice, assistance and representation, the amended Bill will say that the commission may employ persons to provide those services. We have not proposed a similar change to the language of clause 7 on the community legal service, because there is not the same imperative to ensure that salaried providers of civil services are managed, and are seen to be managed, separately from other staff; and because the commission may provide services other than by employing people—for example, by making information available in electronic form on the internet.
The Government are confident that salaried defenders will develop to play a valuable role in the criminal defence service without any element of compulsion. I challenge the private profession to demonstrate the same confidence in the service that they provide. I, for one, have that confidence, and submit that the private

professions have nothing to fear from competing alongside salaried defenders in a system based on an informed choice of representative.
Those in another place who have removed similar provisions are effectively seeking to protect the vested interests of the established profession by preventing that choice from being made. They are not prepared to accept that there might be lessons that we can learn from other countries, and that there may be a case for looking at arranging our legal services in a different way. It is, I regret, a blurred vision, which is not prepared to accept that there can be merit in change and diversity.
I hope that hon. Members will see that, subject to the safeguards set out in this Bill, there is great merit in allowing criminal defence services to be provided both by private practitioners—whether in independent practice or employed by law firms—and by those employed by the state. The Bar and the solicitors profession can survive on their merits. They do not need to be cocooned with restrictive practices and guarantees of state work.

Mr. Garnier: I am most grateful to be called to contribute to this important debate. We are at the point of collision in our deliberations, but that is not unusual when a matter is of concern to those who think about it.
The collision is between the arguments advanced in another place and the Minister's arguments, if I can use that word in connection with what he has said. The Minister had to resort to abuse. He said that lawyers were demanding that their vested interests should be protected against the freedom that he claims will be provided by the amendments that he has tabled. He also said that the amendments would allow the wider public greater access to a full range of lawyers, including both salaried state defenders and those in private practice.
I have never believed that argument by abuse is a substitute for the proper evidential and intellectual analysis of a proposal.
I bow to no man in my admiration of the Parliamentary Secretary's ability to read out unthinkingly the civil service brief with which he has been provided by the Lord Chancellor. There is no doubt that he knows how to read. However, this is not a trivial matter, despite the low attendance in the Chamber this afternoon. No matter how emollient or smooth the Minister's tone, and no matter how he puts forward the words that he read out a moment ago, not much of value or worth underlies them.
I begin by reminding the House what clauses 13 and those immediately following, headed "The Criminal Defence Service", are all about. The Legal Services Commission replaces the Legal Aid Board to run legal aid, for criminal cases via a criminal defence service, and for family/civil cases through a community legal service fund. Lawyers and other providers need a contract from the Legal Services Commission to offer services under the fund, and the Legal Services Commission has the power to make any type of contract.
In relation to criminal cases, most criminal defence service services will be provided under contract, usually at a fixed price. I fully accept the point made by the Minister, the Lord Chancellor and other loyal members of the Government and their supporters, that we are looking at a mixed system. There will not be a wholly state defender system. Some criminal defendants will enjoy the services of private practitioners, but other defendants—


this will be the subject of a debate later this afternoon—will not, and they will be required to make use of the services of employed salaried state defenders.
Those contracts, to which I have referred, will cover everything from police station advice to Crown court representation. As I understand it, the Government intend that high-cost criminal defence service cases will be subject to individual contracts. The possible introduction of United States-style public defenders employed by the criminal defence service with a favoured long-term plan of mixing private and staff lawyers is envisaged, as I implied a moment ago. The courts are to decide if it is in the interests of justice to grant representation under the scheme. The powers previously enjoyed by others will now be transferred to the criminal defence service.
Eventually, legally aided defendants will be able to choose only lawyers with a contract. In high-cost cases, the choice will be limited to lawyers on a specialist panel and, in certain circumstances, defendants are to be assigned to a lawyer. Means testing will be abolished and the court will be able to make convicted defendants repay some or all of their defence costs.
As with so much of the Bill, the aspects that we are now discussing are very much a curate's egg—good in parts but, unfortunately, also bad in parts. No matter how much the Minister and his master seek to persuade the wider public that what they are doing is all good, I regret to say that a proper analysis of what they seek to do does not allow that case to succeed.
For the Opposition's part—I believe that we have the support of the Liberal Democrats—we see no evidence of the need for a criminal defence service. Nor do we understand how injecting a degree of nationalisation into criminal defence can enhance competition. Thirdly, we do not understand how the quality of criminal defence in Britain will be improved by a system of state defenders. Fourthly, we fear that the introduction of state defenders will undermine the perception and the reality of criminal justice. That is particularly true when we consider that, in future, we are likely to be faced in many trials with not only the prosecution being represented by Government officials in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service, but the defence being represented by a Government official.
4.15 pm
You may feel, Madam Speaker, that this is a deeply interesting esoteric discussion to listen to on a Wednesday afternoon. After all the excitement of Prime Minister's Question Time, it must be hideous to have to chair a discussion about arguments over one sort of lawyer or another. [Interruption.] Fortunately, I am deaf in my left ear—like the Labour Government—and I did not hear what the Minister said. It is unlikely to matter; I heard his speech, and I do not imagine that we have much to learn from him.
On 5 July, our revered, noble and learned Lord Chancellor went to Edinburgh, the capital of his home country, to address the Common Law Judiciary Association. He made it clear—and I agree with him—that the independence of the judiciary is a cornerstone of our constitution. He went on to say—and I again agree—that one guarantee of the independence of the judiciary,

and one reason why members of the public and Members of Parliament can have confidence in it, is that the profession of advocacy, whether among solicitors or barristers, is also independent.
Advocates are able—from my own experience, I believe that it is their second nature—to appear before courts and judges against public authorities, Government Departments and police forces, and fearlessly to represent their clients' interests, whether or not the clients are popular or appealing to the press, the judiciary or the jury. If I have not made my interest clear already, may I declare that I am a practising member of the Bar. It is our firm duty to represent our clients irrespective of our prospects of promotion or career or remuneration. [Interruption.]
It is permissible for Ministers to snigger when members of the Bar or solicitors make that point, and it has happened many times. They say how old-fashioned we are and how sad it is that Opposition Members should seek to protect the vested interests of the privately financed Bar. I beg to differ with that view. It is of huge constitutional importance that the independent Bar and the independent solicitors' profession on which the independent judiciary is founded and nourished should be able to appear in the courts without having to worry about whether what they do is favourable or appealing to the state.
The state already prosecutes through the Crown Prosecution Service, which, after 10 years, is beginning to find its feet. We have not yet had the happy experience of a criminal defence service. One need only look across the Atlantic to see what has occurred in the United States. Indeed, we need look only along the corridor to the other place. We can read the record of debates about the Bill conducted by Labour peers who have considerable experience of the law, and who, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, have greater experience than his.
Let me refer the House to an intervention made by Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws. As far as I recall, she is not a card-carrying member of the Conservative party; indeed, from time to time—certainly during the deliberations in which she took part in the other place—she may have doubted whether she should be a card-carrying member of the Labour party.
The noble Lady made several trenchant points, although they may not yet have sunk in for Members on the Treasury Bench, but my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I will draw them to the attention of the House—or at least to the attention of those Members who are unfortunate enough to be in the Chamber this afternoon listening to my speech. I shall paraphrase the noble Lady's remarks because I do not have her words in front of me. From her experience of talking to lawyers in the United States, she found that those who were the least experienced and the most susceptible to pressure found it necessary to join the state defender service. As a consequence, deals were done; pressures were exerted on those lawyers to deliver the list and ensure that the throughput of cases was achieved to the satisfaction of the prosecutors and the courts, and, no doubt, to the career satisfaction of the state defender—but not necessarily to the advantage of the defendant whom they were supposed to represent.
I know that the Minister is a man of immense calm and not likely to lose his temper at any stage—that would be wholly outside his character—but before he gets an ulcer,


I advise him that I am as well aware as he is of clauses 16 and 37. They set out the statutory code of conduct and the overriding duties that members of the state defence service will be required to observe. However, it is one thing to write provisions in a Bill and quite another to ensure that those codes and duties are observed in the rush and heat of battle as one leads up to a case in the magistrates court or the Crown court. I fully accept that the words of the code of conduct and of clause 37, which deals with overriding duties, will be considered; no doubt, they will be stuck up in the robing rooms of every state defender office in the country. However, in due course when the Bill becomes law—sadly, in respect of this aspect of it—I shall be interested to see whether those words will be honoured more in the breach than the observance.
Of course, there will be no evidence of that. Which criminal state defender would put his hand on his heart and run round to The Sun, the Daily Mail, The Times or the Law Society Gazette to say "Oops", because he had settled the case or persuaded the client to plead guilty in order to appease the ire of the prosecutor, who had four cases in a different court and needed to get on, or to assuage the anxiety of a magistrate or a Crown court judge who needed his list to be completed?

Mr. John Burnett: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there could be great proximity between prosecutor and defender? They might even share the same office.

Mr. Garnier: We do not know. I share the suspicions of the hon. Gentleman; we discussed them in Standing Committee and it is right that they should be raised again today. The prosecutor and the defender may well share an office; they may share an employment stream. If people do well and deliver for the state as a defender, they may be promoted across to the prosecution service as a district or regional prosecutor.

Mr. Andrew Dismore: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain the difference between the Liberal party hypothesis that a prosecutor and a defender may share the same office and the current practice in which people acting for both sides of a case often share the same chambers or even the same room? Indeed, people's progress up the prosecution ladder very much depends on whether they find favour with the CPS in defence work.

Mr. Garnier: Let me assist the hon. Gentleman, who claims to be a highly experienced solicitor—as I am sure he is. He may well have instructed barristers from the same chambers in different cases—for example, on one occasion acting for a plaintiff and on another acting for a defendant in a personal injury matter. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman's experience is of criminal cases, but I offer him an example from my own practice.
I am a defamation practitioner. There are not a huge number of defamation practitioners at the Bar of England and Wales—so, inevitably, there are cases in which barristers from my set of chambers act for both sides. However, the great distinction between members of my chambers and members of the criminal defence service and the criminal prosecution service is that my friends in chambers and I are self-employed: we are independent

economic and intellectual units. I do not owe anything other than a duty of courtesy and the normal professional duties to the court to a colleague in chambers when I am against him in a contested matter.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hendon has had the opportunity to act in a libel case, but let me tell him that often the hardest-fought fights between barristers take place between opponents who happen to be in the same set of chambers. A barrister survives and gets his next brief by virtue of his reputation as an independent and fearless advocate on behalf of his client. He does not recover fees or get another brief because he has greased up to some paymaster, or because he has managed to ingratiate himself with some state provider of funds. [Interruption.]
It is easy to snigger. The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), for whom I have the highest admiration, has learned a lot over the past year, since becoming a Whip and joining the legal services team. However, as I look across the Chamber at the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is an experienced advocate, I have a suspicion that he and I, despite our party political differences, and other members of the Bar and members of the solicitors profession—perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Hendon—share a certain understanding of the way in which the independent advocate exercises his duties and carries out his work. My fear is that, if the Government have their way, the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and I have carried out our job in respect of both criminal and civil defendants will be made far more difficult.
There is no evidence of the need for a criminal defence service. It might be said that the Chancellor needs to save money, or at least not to increase expenditure—all Governments need to keep control of expenditure. However, there is no empirical evidence that I have seen, or that the Government have been able to demonstrate to the House or any other interested body, that there is a need for a criminal defence service. There are plenty of private professional advocates who are willing and available to act for defendants in criminal matters.
The Parliamentary Secretary says that it is not the duty of the state to guarantee work for private lawyers. Of course it is not, and no one has ever suggested that it is. The best will do well and the worst will not. There is no requirement in the private professions for the state to hand out free money—a free ride—to either solicitor advocates or banister advocates who act for defendants. It is a simple canard for the Government to suggest that there is an overwhelming need—or any need—for the establishment of a criminal defence service.
The Labour Government have wholeheartedly embraced the Conservative ethos of privatisation. They call it different names, such as private-public partnerships, and they use the language of "Alice in Wonderland" and George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four" to confuse the public and to hide their true intentions, but there is no question but that they are a pale-pink Conservative Government—not a good pale-pink Conservative Government, if I, a pale-pink Conservative, can say that—who are doing their best to understand the language of conservatism without knowing what it is all about. The Government have been found out in relation to clause 13, and the other place, in its refusal to accept this amendment, has found them out as well.
4.30 pm
By resisting the Lords' refusal to accept this House's amendment to this clause, the Government are injecting a degree of nationalisation into the criminal defence system. The Government talk privatisation, the free market and competition. However, because they do not understand what they are doing, they have fallen into the trap of nationalising part of the legal system. They say that they are making the change because it is right and it is what is required. Would that the Government knew what they were doing. If they looked at what is happening both here and in other countries and if they compared like with like, they would understand that they have fallen into a trap of their own making. There is no need for a nationalised criminal defence service.
The Government claim that the quality of criminal defence in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. They think that asserting it proves the case, but there is no evidence to back up the assertion. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary—I always listen carefully to him and I read his articles in the Leicester Mercury every week. However, nothing that he has said, written or caused to be published—if I may resort to the language of a pompous barrister, which is what I am—

Mr. Vaz: Hear, hear.

Mr. Garnier: I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary was listening to that part of my remarks at least.
None of the Minister's utterances has persuaded me that the quality of the criminal defence system in this country will be improved by a system of state defenders. I suggest that the service will deteriorate and diminish.
I accepted at the outset that the Government envisage a mixed system comprising salaried defenders and contracts for private practitioners. The Minister cited the example of the Scottish experience. I always shudder when Ministers—particularly Ministers from the Lord Chancellor's Department—use the expression "the Scottish experience". It takes me back to a 1996 speech made by the Lord Chancellor, then shadow Lord Chancellor, about the Scottish experiment with conditional fee arrangements, which he deprecated. Amazingly, by May 1997, he had done a complete volte face and thought that anything emerging from Scotland was wonderful.
The Minister said that 22 per cent. of defence clients choose the equivalent of the criminal defence service in Scotland. So what? I am not sure that that tells us anything other than that 22 per cent. of clients choose the criminal defence service. The Minister did not tell us why they choose the service, where those clients come from or whether other choices were available to them. Is it the case that in the centres of Glasgow and Edinburgh there is a choice between private practitioners and state defenders, but, because of the excellence of the criminal defence service, 22 per cent. of clients choose the CDS or its equivalent in Scotland?
Do clients choose that service because—as we suspect will happen in this country—they must retain the lawyer with whom they were presented or whom they were required to choose when they were beaten up or drunk and were brought to the police station at 2 am? We do not know. It was a totally useless piece of information

that no doubt satisfied the Minister. Ministers like statistics, and civil servants like writing numbers into Ministers' speeches. We need to understand what is behind the statistics, and the House does not have any inkling of whether the Minister understands what that 22 per cent. from the Scottish example means.
The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say that the policy is based on freedom of choice, and, in doing, so he demonstrated a point that I made not so long ago, which is that there is a total inability to understand what lies behind the Government's jargon. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is a great speaker. I have heard him speak on a number of occasions. I prefer it when he says nothing, but none the less, when he speaks, absolutely no one in the whole county of Leicestershire can do anything but admire what he has to say and the way in which he says it. However, to say that the Government's policy is based on arguments related to freedom of choice is absurd, if not obscene.
"Words mean what I say they mean." Do you remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your schoolboy days when you read "Alice in Wonderland", or your teenage days when you read George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-four"? It is absurd, obscene and ridiculous for the Government to use the arguments that they have used to seek to defend their resistance to the refusal of the other place to swallow the amendment proposed by this House.
The Minister went on to say that those who think as I do were insulting the thousands of employed lawyers and traducing their qualities and professional standards. There are, as yet, no employees of the criminal defence service, and our only experiences of a criminal defence service are those in Scotland, the United States and Canada, none of which is wholly similar. There may well be other jurisdictions where there are state defender services. I think of the former Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China, which are not examples that I imagine the Minister will rush to embrace to support the arguments that he has limply put forward.
I would have greater confidence in what the Minister has said if he could tell us how many employees the criminal defence service will have and how much money his Department or the Treasury will give the service. I want to know, and the public have a right to know, what the Government are proposing. I have listened to many of the debates in the other place and to all the debates in Committee and on the Floor of this House, and I suspect that the short answer is that the Government simply do not have a clue. They are pushing up a balloon and hoping that it will float gently into the sky and that everyone will marvel at the tightness of this great rubber sphere.

Mr. Vaz: We do not want to hear about the hon. and learned Gentleman's private life.

Mr. Garnier: We shall turn to the Minister's private life in a moment, because that has some bearing on what we may yet discuss. What is inside the balloon is no more than Government hot air.
As a fourth argument against this aspect of the Bill, my noble and learned Friend Lord Kingsland suggested in the other place that
the introduction of state defenders will certainly undermine the perception, and also perhaps the reality, of criminal justice."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 418.]


Cogent speeches were made by Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, to whom, no doubt, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) will refer if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. They put forward arguments that wholly undermined what I am gracious enough to call the Government's arguments for the criminal defence service and in support of their resistance to the Lords proposal. Apart from being, to say the very least, tiresome, the Government's arguments in favour of resisting the Lords proposal are ill-considered.
One need only read the arguments not only of my noble Friend Lord Kingsland and Lord Thomas of Gresford, but of Lord Hutchinson, who said:
Our democracy and our fundamental freedoms depend on the rule of law. The law is upheld first by an independent and uncorrupt judiciary. Secondly, it is upheld by advocates—barristers and solicitors—without whom the judges could not operate and from among whom the judges are drawn."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 416.]
That draws me back to a very good point made by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) in earlier debates that without an independent advocacy profession there can be no independent minds from which to draw an independent judiciary.
I read with great care the Lord Chancellor's speech in Edinburgh on 5 July. I agree with pretty well everything he said in it. My only concern is that he has not learned the lessons that he is teaching us all and which he sets out in that speech, much of which followed the remark of the right hon. Member for Llanelli in the House some weeks ago, to which I referred. The establishment, even in part, as the Government propose, of a criminal defence service will lead to the damaging of the independent advocate and therefore to the damaging of the independent judiciary—two concepts which I and my party particularly revere.
It is perfectly possible for the Government to sneer. They frequently do; they do not have to listen to arguments because they have a huge majority. It is perfectly possible for them to pooh-pooh all that Opposition Members say and to try to persuade both the public and supporters in this House that all this is from a tired, middle-aged, white, middle-class barrister who is working out his frustrations at the Government for having been elected in May 1997. I am perfectly prepared to salute the Government's huge majority. What I deprecate is the way in which they use it like a scatter-gun to damage our constitution and our legal processes.
I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to agree with my noble Friend Lord Kingsland, Lord Thomas of Gresford and all the majority in the other House who, having thought about the matter and having listened to the issues and the way in which they were debated on 14 July, would assist me in resisting the Government's decision to strike down the House of Lords proposals.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I rise to speak briefly in support of the Lords proposal that the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to oppose. As I understand it, it would remove from the Bill the provision that would enable this or any future Government to set up a criminal defence service.
I practise occasionally in the criminal courts, and declare an interest as an advocate. I am not asking for a ruling from the Chair, but I am not sure why I need to

declare an interest. I speak as a Member of Parliament with some expertise in legal matters, but as one who is concerned about the rule of law and this country's criminal justice system.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned those in the other House with a blatant vested interest. I do not know to whom he was referring. I hope that he was not referring to Baroness Kennedy, for instance, who has been mentioned. I hope that he was not referring to Lord Hutchinson, who, as Jeremy Hutchinson, was an extremely distinguished defence advocate in cases involving the state and always conducted himself with great artistry and sophistication—qualities which he displayed in the speeches in the other place, which are well worth reading. I hope that my hon. Friend was not referring to those people. I hope that he is not thinking that I represent a blatant vested interest as I make my few brief remarks.
4.45 pm
I spoke on Second Reading and I shall not repeat myself. My arguments have been made in the other place, and they have been made in this place by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier).
Perhaps I am an old romantic, and perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I believe that the defence of those accused of crimes by the state should not be in the hands of employees of the state. I understand that there will be a pilot scheme and that a mixed system will then be set up, but I believe that—Governments being Governments and bureaucracies being bureaucracies—the movement that is under way will continue until, eventually, the defence system is almost wholly state run.
Essentially, the criminal justice system is already dominated by the state. In effect, all crimes are crimes against the state. The prosecutor is the state and, with the development of the Crown Prosecution Service—to which I do not object, and which appears to be putting its house in order—prosecution advocates will increasingly be employees of the state. Judges, who are the salt of the earth, are, ultimately, employees of the state.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Under the separation of powers doctrine, the role of the judiciary is entirely separate from that of the state. However, the difficulty that we perceive, which was mentioned by many hon. Members and by some Government supporters in the other place—including Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said—is that salaried state employees in a nationalised criminal defence service may be put under pressure to fit in with the system. Is not that a cause for concern? Is not the danger of such pressure wholly different from the separation of the role of the judiciary?

Mr. Davies: Well, perhaps. There was a lot in that short intervention. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop and pursue it.
I shall be more factual, perhaps, and simply say that judges are employed by the state. Recorders—I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough is now a recorder or assistant recorder—are employed by


the state. Stipendiary magistrates are employed by the state. We still have juries, which are not employed by the state, but for how long? Who knows?

Mr. Garnier: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I have obviously upset the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not upset me. He is right—I am an assistant recorder, and I pay tribute to the good sense of the present Lord Chancellor in appointing me one. However, the distinction that one must draw between judges and other employees is that although assistant recorders, recorders and full-time judges are paid by the state, they are not, in the strict sense, employed by the state and they do not owe their first allegiance to the state. They owe their allegiance to the oath of office that they take.

Mr. Davies: That may be so, but, ultimately, they are the creatures of the state in the criminal justice system; they have to be.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: A person brought before a Crown court inevitably perceives the judiciary as an arm and extension of the state.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman puts it very well. Juries, not being "employed", are independent of the state. Who knows how long we shall have juries? The Government are working at it—they are trying to reduce the function of juries. Justices of the peace and lay magistrates are still independent of the state. I do not know whether they will gradually be replaced, if the state can afford it, by stipendiaries. It is easier to have stipendiaries around than lay magistrates. However, they are certainly more expensive.
So, inevitably, we shall have a criminal justice system with a state dominance. The proposition now is that the defence of the accused as well is to be in the hands of the state. The defence advocate is to be a state employee. As I have said, I am old-fashioned and perhaps romantic, but I am not a blatant vested interest. Perhaps I am old-fashioned to believe that what I have described is not desirable. However, as I understand it, that is what my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing.
If we go down the road of state dominance, there will be repercussions and not only for the accused, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said. In future, an advocate could spend the whole of his or her professional life working for the state, for the state prosecution service for a time and then for the state defence service. Twenty or 30 years of that person's professional life would be spent working as an advocate in the criminal justice system for the state.
In the main, judges in the Crown courts, the criminal courts, are inevitably and rightly chosen from advocates who have experience of criminal cases.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Davies: I will in a moment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's next intervention will not be as deep and heavy as his last one.
Judges will be chosen from practitioners with experience of criminal cases, who will have spent all their professional life working for the state prosecution and defence services. That is unhealthy.

Mr. Hawkins: As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, I very much agree with the argument that he is developing. Would he accept that it might be even more dangerous if advocates spent not half of their career, as he suggests, in the nationalised criminal defence service and the other half in the Crown Prosecution Service, but spent their entire career working for just one of those services? Someone may spend his entire career in a nationalised criminal defence service, becoming entirely hidebound by the pressures that that state employment may bring.

Mr. Davies: That is a danger as well. The point is well made.
I move on to evidence and procedure. Perhaps more so in criminal matters than anywhere else, the rules of evidence, especially, and those of procedure are extremely important. Those rules grow out of cases, situations and lawyers' perceptions. There is a danger if all the lawyers involved are working for the state and if all their experience is in a state service. At the end of the day, the state is the prosecutor. The rules of evidence, the rules of procedure and all the books that are written about evidence and procedure will be dominated by advocates who have worked for the state in the criminal justice system.
I shall digress before I resume my place. Years ago, I was rummaging in the Library when I came across a book with an extraordinary title. I still cannot believe it. I still think that perhaps I dreamt it or I was half asleep. Believe it or not, the book was called "Vishinski on Evidence". We are living in a period where history has come to an end. For those of the present period, I shall explain that Vishinski was Stalin's chief prosecutor during the 1930s show trials. I think that he ended up for a short time as the Soviet Foreign Minister, either before or after Molotov. I have not been able to find the book since. Perhaps it has been removed.
I thought, "What did Vishinski know about evidence?" I then thought, "Vishinski knew everything about evidence" because he was the evidence. He made the evidence. He prosecuted and probably there was no defence service. Well, perhaps there was some sort of Stalinist defence service.
We must be careful. I do not like the word "nationalising". I think that that is the sort of word that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough would use. Did he talk about pale pink? Once we make the entire criminal justice system become dominated by the state, we could have the difficulties and problems that I have described.
I was going to say that I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will think again, but we are not on Report. I am sure that his instructions from the Lord Chancellor contain in large capital letters the words, "Resist. Resist. Resist." I shall not ask him to think again—perhaps he knows, anyway. I say to him in all honesty and good faith, not as a blatant vested interest, that it saddens me that my party and my right hon. and


hon. Friends are going down this road and enabling the state system to dominate completely the defence of criminals and the rule of law.

Mr. Burnett: I am particularly delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who made a marvellous speech. I should declare an interest: I am a solicitor, but not a practising one.
The grouped amendments deal with the Government's intention to set up through the Bill a state defender system. It has been opposed by me and my party in this House and in the other place. The Government claim that defendants will always have a choice between an independent lawyer and a lawyer employed by the criminal defence service.
I wait to hear from the Minister what notice defendants will be given of that option. What will they be told? When will they be told? By whom will they be told of that choice? Will there be a statutory duty on any individual to give proper and complete notice of the choice? We are dealing with the rights of people accused of crimes—people who will have the vast apparatus and resources of the state arraigned against them.
I pay tribute to my noble Friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hutchinson of Lullington who, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) both acknowledged, made excellent contributions in the debate in the other place. I thank both for their generosity.
My two noble Friends made cogent and effective speeches reported in columns 412 and 416 of Hansard dated 14 July 1999. I also commend to the House the speech of Lord Kingsland, reported at column 418. His speech was clear, concise and compelling. To my mind he made four bulls-eye points, which I shall summarise.
First, Lord Kingsland argued, there is no evidence of a need for a state salaried defender system. Secondly, he asked how the introduction of a partially nationalised system would enhance competition. Thirdly, he asked what evidence there was that its introduction would improve the quality of criminal justice. Finally, Lord Kingsland rightly asserted that the introduction of state defenders would undermine the perception and perhaps the reality of criminal justice.
We shall have the state on both sides of a case—the prosecution, rightly, represented by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the defendant represented by a state defendant. To most of us in the House, that is a glaring conflict of interest.
We have debated these matters long and hard at many stages in the House, and they have been debated at length in the other place. This is not a plea for the retention of restrictive practices. Independent lawyers compete fiercely and keenly with one another. This is a plea for justice, and the Government would be wise to heed it.

5 pm

Mr. Dismore: I ought to declare an interest: I am a solicitor, although I have not undertaken a great deal of criminal practice recently. However, I have practised in the criminal courts.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for referring to my early-day motion supporting what the Government are trying to achieve, which has been signed

by 58 parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the House. I am afraid that I was not in the Chamber when he mentioned it, but I am grateful for his recognition of the strength of feeling in the House that it reflects. Indeed, he had completed his remarks when I entered the Chamber and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was reaching his peroration. My initial reaction was to ask, "Where's the beef in that argument?" I have listened to many hours of debate on this issue in Committee and in the Chamber and, so far, I have not detected any meat in it, except for the beef made on behalf of the barristers and Queen's counsel protection club, which the hon. and learned Member represents.
I regret that I have always found the barrister profession to be very conservative and it inevitably rejects the arguments when any sensible reform of the legal system—such as the extension of conditional fees under the Bill or rights of audience for employed advocates—is put forward. Every single attempt to open up the profession is resisted by the Bar, and it is crying wolf yet again.

Mr. Garnier: I shall not take the bait in respect of members of the barrister profession, because I do not think that I need to bother with that. Would the hon. Gentleman care to look at the Division list of 14 July, when this matter was debated in the other place? Can he tell me the percentage of barristers who voted for the amendment tabled by Lord Thomas? I think that he will find that it is a tiny percentage of the overall majority. His argument is not improved by his abusiveness, and he ought to try to concentrate on the underlying arguments. I do not know whether that idea appeals to him.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention does not take the matter a great deal further. I simply said that whenever a law reform comes before the House the barrister profession seems to be agin it. I was about to address an argument relating to clauses 37 and 16 that he touched on briefly, but did not develop.
A duty of impartiality and independence is imposed on advocates for the first time by clause 37. That may have been a professional requirement, but it will become a statutory duty as well. The Bill goes beyond that, because clause 16 provides additional protection through the code of conduct, which will be subject to approval by the House. It will put in place
duties to protect the interests of the individuals for whom services are provided …
duties to avoid conflicts of interest …
duties of confidentiality".
The duty to the court is set out in clause 37, and all those matters will be dealt with by the code of conduct. The Bill provides much stronger protection for advocates, whether they be employed or not employed, against improper resistance from whatever quarter.

Mr. Grieve: Returning to the theme of "Vishinski on Evidence", the hon. Gentleman will agree that the constitution of the legal profession in the Soviet Union always provided protections on paper, including that of the role of lawyers in defending individuals, but they were of absolutely no importance because no such ethos existed.

Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because I studied the Chinese legal


system when I was an undergraduate. My recollection is that it is based on very different premises from those on which our own common law system is based. As he says, the statutory rights of independence such as we have here are not incorporated in it. Indeed, it presumes guilt, and people have to argue that they do not deserve such severe punishment. He has not done much for his argument by referring to those totalitarian regimes. Their systems do not compare to the system that exists in this country, which will continue to exist after the Government amendments are agreed to and the Bill becomes law.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point—probably deliberately and consciously—made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). The point is that, however much things are put in a code, as the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said earlier, one cannot alter the ethos of a profession. If the hon. Gentleman could have looked behind him and seen how strongly the right hon. Member for Llanelli was disagreeing with the aspersions that he was casting on the traditions and reforms that the independent Bar has introduced, he would have realised that his case is not supported, even by those on his own Benches.

Mr. Dismore: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If the House divides later, we shall see where the support lies. Although, in the past, we have had professional requirements, clause 37 now introduces statutory requirements, which go as far as, if not further than, existing professional requirements.
We have heard a lot of humbug about the position of salaried state employees. The so-called "independent" Bar gets practically all of its not inconsiderable income from state funds, whether from the Crown Prosecution Service or from legal aid for defence work. In practice, it makes little difference whether the money comes from that direction or as a salary. It is a false distinction to draw.
Moreover, a salaried employee is in a stronger position of independence than somebody in private practice, who is subject to pressures to earn a living that do not exist for somebody on a salary. It is extremely important that we consider those distinctions. For example, somebody in private practice must always look to see where his next case will come from. If anything, he is more likely to want to suck up to those providing the work than somebody who is given the work as part of his job.
One important factor is the job security that a salaried employee has through existing employment protection rights, which will be strengthened by the Government if the Employment Relations Bill, which is to be considered after this debate, is enacted. One of my constituents is a CPS employee, and she has felt it appropriate to bring a case before an employment tribunal against the CPS to enforce her employment rights, without fear or favour in doing so. That right would not be available to an independent barrister, who may, for some reason, find himself struck off the CPS list simply because the CPS has decided that it no longer likes his work. Therefore, independent contractors have rather less protection against the pressures about which we have heard a great deal from the Opposition than employed advocates.

Mr. Grieve: Does not the hon. Gentleman make a compelling point against his own case? If an independent

barrister working for the CPS loses his CPS work, he can always return to the rest of his practice. A criticism that has often been made of, for instance, Old Bailey practitioners, who do only prosecution work, is that they are too hand-in-glove with their paymasters. Is not that precisely what will happen, but even worse, in relation to a criminal defence service? The hon. Gentleman's comments destroy his own case.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. If we have in independent private practice people who depend on that sort of work, without the current employment protection laws they will inevitably do the sucking up to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We are strengthening our employment laws, and we have the necessary duties in clause 37 and a code of practice in clause 16. If an employed barrister were, for some reason, subject to disciplinary action for defending an individual too fearlessly, he would be extremely likely to rely, either through the judicial review proceedings, on his overriding duties under clause 37, or on the code of practice in clause 16, or would have an absolute defence in any disciplinary proceedings before an employment tribunal.
We have heard a lot of humbug from Conservative Members. All that is proposed for the criminal defence service is a pilot scheme. I think that it will be an interesting development in our legal system. It will potentially lead to a mixed economy and valid competition to the private Bar, which has had its way for far too long. I welcome the Government's proposals.

Mr. Grieve: As I have done on several occasions in debates on this legislation, I must first declare an interest as a practising member of the Bar. I apologise for not hearing the beginning of the Minister's speech as I was delayed, although familiarity with his arguments will have come from the many hours that were spent listening to his predecessor in Committee. I recollect that the Minister was also present for much of the time.
The issue was put succinctly by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). People who are caught up in the criminal justice system are gradually being ground up, perhaps justifiably, by a Moloch descending upon them with the ultimate intention of punishing them for misdeeds of which they are accused. As the right hon. Gentleman correctly said, within the bounds of what is humanly feasible, we have in this country, by dint partly of accident and partly of tradition, tried to erect a system of justice that is fair and impartial, especially in respect of the judiciary.
Nevertheless, it remains the case that for those on the receiving end, the whole system—including the prosecutor and the judge—is an arm of the state. In reality, that is so. That arm of the state may be designed or intended only to punish them for their wrongdoings if they are guilty, but it is the system into which they have been dragged. In those circumstances, whether paid for by the accused or through the legal aid system, the only person who will stand up for them and be their champion is their representative, be he the solicitor whom they have instructed or, if the matter is in the Crown court, their advocate—the barrister. If, in the future, it is their solicitor advocate, so be it. The independent advocate will represent their interests.
Those who practise in the criminal courts know that, in the vast majority of cases, the people who are accused of murder and grave offences, such as robbery and other


headline offences, are poor, inadequate, inarticulate, eccentric, or mildly or severely deranged and have no one else to represent their interests apart from those who, through the legal aid system, have been appointed to act for them.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most powerful points that Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws made when she attacked the Government's proposals was to ask who, under the new system, would represent clients who allege serious miscarriages of justice, and how could advocates represent defendants if a specific and specialised knowledge of, for example, mental health law was required? Will people with those specific difficulties be unable to be represented properly because there will not be sufficient expertise in the new nationalised criminal defence service?

Mr. Grieve: I agree with hon. Friend. I concede the point that some of the details of this proposal may enable the problems that undoubtedly exist to be bypassed. However, I stick to the general point that concerns me even more, which is about the ethics behind the system that it is suggested should now be established. I do not accept that a public defender system can adequately and properly meet the needs of the accused person, so as to reassure him and me—leaving aside my role as a barrister, but acting as a legislator, a Member of the House and a member of the public—that the role is being adequately discharged by those who have been appointed to do the job.
I come back to what I said to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the prosecution system. I do not seek to draw a direct comparison between the two, but it is instructive that there are pointers to the dangers of the public defender system in the public prosecutor system, albeit that the two are different. It is well known in my profession that excessive identification with an individual barrister who has been retained to do only prosecuting rather than defending work always causes concern among his fellow professionals. This is an historical matter that goes back long before the CPS.
One of the great strengths of our system of advocacy and justice, which is much commented on by foreigners who come here to observe it, is the interchangeability of advocacy between those who prosecute and those who defend. When that interchangeability diminishes, especially at an advocacy level—as it has done over the years for those who are retained almost non-stop to prosecute—anxieties creep in about impartiality. That concerns the prosecutor's role, but it is an interesting example to look at when one considers the whole issue of the proposed public defender service. What are the criteria by which the success of the public defender will be judged? Will it be his fearless championing of the individual whom he is representing, or will it be his ability to dispose of business quickly through the courts, thereby leading to a lessening of costs, which underpins much of what the Bill is all about? I think that the pressures will be for the latter.
To what extent will the public defender have freedom of action, notwithstanding the grandiloquent words that may be in the Bill or in the rules that will be placed before the House for its approval? There will be continuous

pressures on the public defender of a completely different order from those on independent persons who are appointed to represent an accused and are being paid under the legal aid system.
I do not accept that there are any benefits to be derived from the public defender system. Indeed, I do not understand what the benefits are, or even from what point they are envisaged to start. We shall address some of these matters in the next debate, which, in some ways, concerns me even more and points to the iniquities of the proposed system.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue arises of the parallel to which the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) adverted? The irony is that the Minister is constrained by the same concerns that we are all expressing about the criminal defence service. As the right hon. Gentleman said, someone who speaks on behalf of the state is constrained because he is unable to depart from his brief. He is instructed to resist, and not to take account of the arguments that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend are making.

Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. Having recently been appointed to the Front Bench of my party on a matter unrelated to this one, on which I continue to speech as a Back Bencher, I am fully aware as a parliamentarian of how one's independence of judgment is inevitably fettered, and perhaps properly so, by the calls of loyalty and discipline in the party structure. I am sure that the Minister suffers that fate every day of the week. That is precisely the point. That may be appropriate in this forum, but the person who is appointed to represent an accused person who is being dragged through the criminal justice system should not be placed under such constraints. I do not see how he can escape being under such constraints if there is a public defender system, as is envisaged.
The Minister says that other countries have adopted such systems, and that the world has not come to an end. Indeed, it has been suggested in the other place that they work quite well. As a lawyer practising in this country, but with plenty of international contacts—especially on the continent of Europe—I can only say that I have not heard it suggested that the independence of our defence system is something about which we ought to be concerned. Indeed, it is repeatedly held up as a model of its kind.
We have debated this matter at great length, and I do not wish to take up too much of the House's time. We have debated it on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Perhaps the Minister should note this, however. A number of amendments that the Government did not like were tabled in the other place when the Bill began its progress. Independent-minded Members of the other place, while accepting a good many Government amendments, concentrated their fire on certain key issues. The Government would do well to consider those issues carefully, because they go to the heart of the independence of the criminal justice system—and, indeed, the assurance that must be given to those accused of crimes that they will be treated fairly.
This measure smacks of unfairness. As such, it is a retrograde step, and I do not understand the justification for it. I wish that the Minister would think again.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am happy to call the Minister, if he is winding up the debate, but I think that the Opposition spokesman wants to speak first.

Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think—especially as the Minister invited me to expand on some of the concerns that were being expressed—that I should return to some of what was said about this part of the Bill on Second Reading. At that time, I expressed such concerns from the Back Benches, but it should be remembered that they were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, as they have been again today.
The Government suggest that the Bill will improve access to justice, but Members on both sides of both Houses have voiced the fear that it will achieve the precise opposite. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was right to quote the character in "Alice" who said, "A word means what I want it to mean", and to say that the Bill uses the language of George Orwell—newspeak. As in so many other areas of their policy, the Government believe that it is enough to cause a title to be chosen for a Bill that sounds wonderful—that sounds as if the Bill is helping people. That reminds me of an exchange between Sir Humphrey and the Minister in "Yes Minister". Sir Humphrey says, "Always deal with the most difficult bit in the title, Minister." That is clearly the lesson that the Lord Chancellor wished to convey in his choice of title for this Bill.
As has been pointed out yet again today by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), the Bill will result in a denial of access to justice. Neither my right hon. and hon. Friends nor I accept that the Bill will enable a criminal defence service properly to represent defendants involved in particularly difficult cases—cases involving allegations of miscarriages of justice or malpractice on the part of police officers, or involving specialised questions concerning mental health law.
It would not be enough for Opposition Members in the House of Commons, whether Liberal Democrats or Conservatives, to express such concerns. The Minister and the Lord Chancellor must take account of the fact that far more distinguished lawyers than us on the Government Benches in another place—distinguished barristers such as Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws—have expressed precisely the same concerns, in extremely strong terms. Let me again quote what Lady Kennedy said in the first debate in another place. I quoted it when I spoke from the Back Benches on the Bill. She said:
I know that our Lord Chancellor is committed to human rights … But might he also be creating another legacy—the introduction of a system which can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1158.]

I urge the Minister and his right hon. and noble Friend to think again. Surely, when as distinguished a human rights lawyer as Lady Kennedy, with an impeccable pedigree in the field, says that the system can only disadvantage the many, particularly the poor, that is the worst criticism that anyone could make of a Government whom the Prime Minister claims—so often that it has almost become a cliché—to be a Government of the many, not the few. Lady Kennedy has said that the Bill will disadvantage the many, particularly the poor, and I feel that no stronger condemnation could be expressed.
As was said by Lord Thomas of Gresford in the most recent debate in another place, speaking for the Liberal Democrats, it is essential to recognise the dangers in what the Government propose, notwithstanding the canards of the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about protectionism on the part of the Bar. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, those who consult the voting list will see that, when these proposals were defeated in another place by a large majority—no less than 141 to 85—most of those who voted were life peers and non-lawyers.
The present Government are committed to the politics of envy, and to the abolition of the voting rights of hereditary peers; but they still want a Chamber containing life peers. The Minister said earlier, "We believe in a revising Chamber", but he does not want that really. We are back to "Alice": the Government want a revising Chamber only when it does not seek to revise. What they really want is a poodle—or perhaps, in this instance, Derry's dachshund. What they really want is a revising Chamber that never defeats the Government: a Chamber that says, "We may have concerns, but we will let this go through on the nod. We have faith."
It is clear that the other place as currently constituted is wiser than that. It wishes to behave as a real revising Chamber. When it sees the Government introducing legislation that will clearly not be advantageous to the public, it wishes to say so. Members on both sides of both Houses are determined to demonstrate to the Government that this is an unhelpful and damaging proposal.
If the Government, the Lord Chancellor and the Minister really know in their heart of hearts that the Bill will not increase access to justice, and that it is damaging, what is it really all about? The hon. Member for Hendon asked, "Where is the beef?" The beef is here: we know that the Lord Chancellor is presenting proposals in government that he specifically criticised in opposition. As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor—then shadow Lord Chancellor—made a speech criticising proposals of this kind. He has gone back on that now, because he is constrained by Her Majesty's Treasury. He believes that this is a cost-saving measure. I believe that, in practice, the criminal defence service will not achieve even that, and I share all the concerns that have been expressed. The right hon. Member for Llanelli nods.
On Second Reading, I suggested that the Government were in danger of creating the same problems that we experienced with the Child Support Agency. Since I made that speech, the Government have said that they will improve the CSA. The Act that established it was introduced with all-party support and with the best of intentions, but we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The Government claim to be keen to deal with the waste caused by bureaucracy; yet a Government


who, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough pointed out, have claimed to be convinced of the merits of privatisation and the involvement of the private sector now say that the legal profession is different, and that part of it must be nationalised. They say that they want to go in the opposite direction to all their other policies. It would have been far more consistent if the Government had stuck to the Lord Chancellor's line when he was shadow Lord Chancellor, and not introduced such damaging proposals.
Our case has been made for us not only by Opposition Members, but by the right hon. Member for Llanelli and Labour peers in another place. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government may have second thoughts and decide not to proceed with the proposals. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House who feel strongly about the matter to support what their lordships have done in another place and to reject the Government's proposals.

Mr. Vaz: This has been an interesting debate, not least because of the fact that there is a bit of confusion as to who is the spokesperson for the Opposition. It seems that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has been shoved aside and we have the return of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who was very keen to criticise and to pepper his arguments with personal abuse.
The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to me reading out the civil service brief. Some people will never in their careers have the opportunity to be able to do that. They will spend their lives wandering around Market Harborough bitterly, trying to be recognised by their constituents. The hon. and learned Gentleman described himself as a pompous barrister. The cheers from Labour Members and, indeed, some Opposition Members demonstrate the fact that most people would agree with that description. I say nothing more about it.
In Edinburgh, the Lord Chancellor made an excellent speech, which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough has endorsed. The point that the Lord Chancellor made, although it was lost on the hon. and learned Gentleman, was that judges receive their salary from the state, as will those in the salaried criminal defence service. There is no question of judges' independence or integrity being compromised in their work, a point that was correctly raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who stated that state-funded services had a fundamental role in our the legal system. We cannot have those services without state funding. They exist and are there to be used.

Mr. Burnett: I hope that the Minister will deal with the argument that was advanced by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) about the huge panoply of the state apparatus: it consists of not only the judiciary and prosecution, but now the defence. Will he deal with that argument?

Mr. Vaz: I hope that I will deal with it briefly, but, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we have discussed the matter on several occasions on Second Reading, in Committee, in the other place and again today. The position has not changed. The state is involved in the provision of legal services. The hon. Gentleman made a very half-hearted

defence of the case that was made in the other place. Perhaps he does not particularly believe in the case that he put forward today, but was going through the motions because he had been entrapped into doing so by his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place.
There is no question that the independence of the prosecutor and those who conduct the defence will be compromised. The view that they will both sit in the same room and collude with each other about the outcome of cases is absolute nonsense. For a start, they are responsible to different Departments of State; the Legal Services Commission is indirectly responsible to the Department because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an independent body—it is independent of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Attorney-General is accountable in Parliament for what the Crown Prosecution Service does.
There is no question of collusion. We would like salaried defenders to be in exactly the same position as prosecutors—the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) described them as fearless champions ensuring that prosecutions are conducted appropriately. That is exactly what we want in relation to salaried defenders.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough mentioned international research. Was he listening to my speech? Are we taking part in the same debate? Does he understand what we are saying? International research shows that mixed systems can be the best and most cost-effective way in which to provide criminal defence services. I listed in my speech the various research studies in America and Australia, and pointed out that the way forward was to look at a mixed system, which will provide not only better value for money, but better legal services.
As I have said, we intend to consult widely on our proposals, and we intend to have a pilot scheme. I raised the example of what is happening in Scotland. That shows that people wish to use the system that is being developed there, but it is right and proper that we should have a system that best meets the needs of this country's legal system. That is why the pilots are being initiated.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has nothing to fear from the proposals because, as he said, the state pays for defence work at the moment. It pays private sector lawyers for each case in which they act. In future, most defence work will be provided by private sector lawyers who are paid under contract. Therefore, there is no question of the system changing fundamentally. We hope to provide choice for people, enabling them to get the best possible advice, assistance and representation that they can. That is all that the system aims to do.
The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) asked several questions about timing, information and the like. As I and the Lord Chancellor have said, regulations will cover exactly those points. Before we have those regulations, we will consult and ensure that the system actually works. Services that need to be provided will be provided. Of course, it depends on when the person enters the system. When that person enters the system, he or she will be provided with the full list of firms and any salaried defenders who may be available to do the work.
As the House knows, I worked in a law centre. People came there to ask for assistance on such work—state-funded work—because they had confidence in the


lawyers who were doing the work. The lawyers who will work in the criminal defence service will be of the highest quality. They will be specialists.
The hon. and learned Member for Harborough has, in a veiled way, advertised his work as a libel barrister—I know whom to go to if I am ever defamed: it will not be to him. Of course we want the best possible advocates; that is what we want for the system. It is not true that, because it is a state-funded system with salaried defenders, defenders will be of an inferior class or type. We want the best, in the same way as the Director of Public Prosecutions in the Crown Prosecution Service chooses the best possible people to prosecute.
Those are the arguments; those are the facts. They have not changed since the previous time we discussed the matter in the House. It is clear that the House has expressed its view, and that the other place has made its decisions on the basis of the vested interests involved. Opposition Members should not try to cover up who was behind the moves in the other place. It was a blatant case of those with vested interests attempting to overturn the views of the House. We will not permit that.
I know that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is the son of a recorder and practising barrister, but he wanders in in the middle of the debate and starts to intervene—[Interruption.] Yes, he did. These are serious issues. He should have been here at the start of the debate if he felt so strongly about them.
What we propose is the best system. It is a good system and it will work.

Question put, That this House does not insist on Commons amendments Nos. 27 to 30:—

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 166.

Division No. 266]
[5.40 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainger, Nick
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ashton, Joe
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Atkins, Charlotte
Cann, Jamie


Barron, Kevin
Caplin, Ivor


Bayley, Hugh
Casale, Roger


Beard, Nigel
Caton, Martin


Begg, Miss Anne
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Chaytor, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Bennett, Andrew F
Church, Ms Judith


Benton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Berry, Roger
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Betts, Clive
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Blackman, Liz
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradshaw, Ben
Cohen, Harry


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Colman, Tony


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Connarty, Michael


Browne, Desmond
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Buck, Ms Karen
Corbett, Robin


Burden, Richard
Cousins, Jim


Burgon, Colin
Cox, Tom


Butler, Mrs Christine
Cranston, Ross





Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)



Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Darvill, Keith



Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dawson, Hilton
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally


Denham, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dismore, Andrew
Kemp, Fraser


Donohoe, Brian H
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Drew, David
Kidney, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Edwards, Huw
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Laxton, Bob


Ennis, Jeff
Lepper, David


Etherington, Bill
Leslie, Christopher


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Levitt, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lock, David


Flint, Caroline
McAllion, John


Flynn, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas


Follett, Barbara
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Macdonald, Calum


Fyfe, Maria
McDonnell, John


Galloway, George
McFall, John


Gapes, Mike
McGrady, Eddie


Gardiner, Barry
McIsaac, Shona


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gerrard, Neil
McNamara, Kevin


Gibson, Dr Ian
McNulty, Tony


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis


Godsiff, Roger
McWalter, Tony


Golding, Mrs Llin
McWilliam, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mallaber, Judy


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Grocott, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Grogan, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Gunnell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hain, Peter
Meale, Alan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Merron, Gillian


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Healey, John
Mitchell, Austin


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Moffatt, Laura


Heppell, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hill, Keith
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hinchliffe, David
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morley, Elliot


Hoey, Kate
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian






Pendry, Tom
Steinberg, Gerry


Pickthall, Colin
Stevenson, George


Pike, Peter L
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Plaskitt, James
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pound, Stephen
Stott, Roger


Powell, Sir Raymond
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Raynsford, Nick
Timms, Stephen


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rooker Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Roy Frank
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Ruane, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Ryan, Ms Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Salter, Martin
Walley, Ms Joan


Sarwar, Mohammad
Ward, Ms Claire


Savidge, Malcolm
Wareing, Robert N


Sawford, Phil
Watts, David


Sedgemore, Brian
White, Brian


Sheerman, Barry
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Singh, Marsha
Wills, Michael


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Worthington, Tony



Wray, James


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wyatt, Derek


Snape, Peter



Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spellar, John
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Squire, Ms Rachel
Mr. Jim Dowd


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Chope, Christopher


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James



Baker, Norman
Collins, Tim


Beggs, Roy
Colvin, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cotter, Brian


Bercow, John
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Curry, Rt Hon David


Blunt, Crispin
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Boswell, Tim
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brake, Tom
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Brand, Dr Peter
Duncan, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Duncan Smith, Iain


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Burnett, John
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Burstow, Paul
Fallon, Michael


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fearn, Ronnie


Cash, William
Flight, Howard


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Forsythe, Clifford



Forth, Rt Hon Eric





Foster, Don (Bath)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fox, Dr Liam
May, Mrs Theresa


Fraser, Christopher
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gale, Roger
Moore, Michael


Garnier, Edward
Moss, Malcolm


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gibb, Nick
Norman, Archie


Gill, Christopher
Oaten, Mark


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Ottaway, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Page, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Paice, James


Gray, James
Prior, David


Green, Damian
Randall, John


Greenway, John
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Grieve, Dominic
Rendel, David


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Robathan, Andrew


Hague, Rt Hon William
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Hammond, Philip
St Aubyn, Nick


Harris, Dr Evan
Sanders, Adrian


Hawkins, Nick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Spring, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Streeter, Gary


Jenkin, Bernard
Swayne, Desmond


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Syms, Robert



Tapsell, Sir Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Keetch Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Key, Robert
Tonge, Dr Jenny


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Townend, John



Tredinnick, David


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Tyler, Paul


Kirkwood, Archy
Tyrie, Andrew


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Viggers, Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Leigh, Edward
Wardle, Charles


Letwin, Oliver
Waterson, Nigel


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Webb, Steve


Lidington, David
Wells, Bowen


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Livsey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Llwyd, Elfyn
Wilkinson, John


Loughton, Tim
Willetts, David


Luff, Peter
Willis, Phil


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


McLoughlin, Patrick



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Maples, John
Mr. Keith Simpson and


Mates, Michael
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (e) agreed to.

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 31, to which the Lords have disagreed.
Lords Reason:
Because an individual who has been provided with advice or assistance funded by the Commission under section 14 should not be taken to have selected as his representative pursuant to that right the person who provided the advice or assistance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Vaz: The amendments relate to clause 15, which establishes the duty of the commission to fund


representation, sets out the means by which it may do so, and provides powers to limit the extent to which the defendant may choose his or her representative.
It is highly desirable that defendants should be able to choose their representative, not least to promote their confidence in the criminal justice system. Clause 15(7) enshrines that principle. However, a completely unrestricted choice would undermine the commission's ability to achieve value for money, so subsection (8) contains powers to limit that right of choice by regulations.
One of the fundamental weaknesses of the present criminal legal aid system is its fragmentation. That can lead to help being given under several different parts of the scheme in a single case—green form advice, advice and assistance at the police station, assistance from the duty solicitor at the magistrates court, and a full legal aid order for representation in court. That produces duplication, delay and unnecessary cost.
Amendment No. 31, now further clarified by the amendments proposed today, is central to our plans to eliminate these deficiencies in future by ensuring, wherever possible, continuity of representation throughout the case. It is a power to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which individuals who receive advice and assistance are deemed to have selected their adviser to represent them in the subsequent proceedings.
Once an individual has chosen an adviser, typically when being questioned by the police, the taxpayer should only have to pay for another lawyer to take over the case, necessarily repeating some work that has already been done, if there is a good reason for a change. An example would be a conflict of interest between clients.
Let me explain how we envisage the system working in practice. A person being questioned by the police will be able to select his or her adviser from any firm holding a contract with the Legal Services Commission, or he or she might select a salaried defender. Suspects would be shown a list of all firms based in the area, and informed of the implication of their choice. If the chosen adviser were not available, the individual would use the duty solicitor for the time being. But the duty solicitor will not be considered to have been selected, as a preference had been expressed for someone else. If an individual declines to express a preference, he or she will be advised by the duty solicitor and deemed to have selected the duty solicitor as their representative.
The power provided by amendment No. 31 applied to any provider of advice and assistance; it did not distinguish between those who had been chosen by the suspect and those providing advice only because the chosen adviser was not available. The intention was for the regulations to make it clear that a person advised by the duty solicitor would not be deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor as a representative if a different choice had been expressed.
Alternative amendment (a) in my name is a more limited power which applies to only chosen advisers. Amendment (b) provides power to define what constitutes a choice. That is necessary to deal with the situation of an individual who declines to express any preference. The regulations would provide that someone who remained silent, having been informed of their right to make a choice and the implications of not doing so, would be

deemed to have chosen the duty solicitor who actually advised them. That is necessary to prevent people from playing the system by refusing to express a preference, accepting the advice of the duty solicitor, and then seeking to exercise their right to choose a different representative when the case reached court, probably causing the case to be adjourned.
We intend to consult on the details of all the regulations under clause 15, including regulations about continuity between advice and representation under these amendments, and regulations under clause 15(8)(e) about the circumstances when it is justified to change the originally chosen representative.
The Government have explained repeatedly during the Bill's passage that it will provide powers to ensure that the public receive quality-assured services. People requiring criminal defence services will benefit from the performance standards that will be incorporated in all contracts, and applied to salaried defenders. Those will include targets for the proportion of requests to attend at a police station, once a suspect has made a choice, which are met by the solicitors' firm or salaried defenders' office. All firms with criminal defence service contracts, and any salaried defenders, will take part in the duty solicitor rota. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose that advice and assistance from the duty solicitor in any sense constitutes a second-class service.
The noble Lord Thomas of Gresford tabled the motion in another place to disagree with Commons amendment No. 31. That followed immediately on his successful motions about salaried defenders. No doubt inadvertently. he also moved this motion, although he had not spoken to it, and it was erroneously allowed to pass before my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor could speak in favour of amendment No. 31. I do not know whether Lord Thomas would have been content with the Lord Chancellor's explanation, because he did not have an opportunity to give it, but he is probably as surprised as anyone that the issue remains to be settled.

6 pm

Mr. Garnier: My brevity should not be taken to reflect our opposition to the way in which the Government intend to amend the Bill. I have listened with care to the Minister. What he said broadly reflects what the Lord Chancellor said about Lord Gresford's amendment on 14 July:
It will allow the defendant's choice to be limited to any lawyer with a current contract with the Legal Services Commission (or, had that provision prevailed, a salaried defender). Our intention is to ensure that suspects and defendants generally have a choice between several contracted firms and, were salaried defenders to be permitted, with them too."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 424.]
I am reminded of Mr. Henry Ford, the car manufacturer, who said that people might have any colour, so long as it was black. In Committee, on 4 May, I described the Minister's predecessor's arguments in favour of the Government's proposal as follows:
When I say that you have a choice, you have the choice that I decree you should have. It's not a free choice between any number of options—it's take it or leave it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 May 1999; c. 227.]
The Government have been responsible for a huge number of remarkable utterances.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: Will my hon. and learned Friend accept from someone who has practised


criminal law for many years that countless practitioners up and down the country fear that we are seeing a complete reduction in choice for the accused person? That person simply will not have the freedom that he or she has always had to choose a lawyer. Because of financial constraints, choice will be severely limited. Does that not go against the interests of defendants and the criminal justice system?

Mr. Garnier: My hon. Friend speaks a truth evident to all—except the Government—who are prepared to apply their minds to it. I regret that a Government containing distinguished lawyers including the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton and even the Minister, who is muttering across the Table, should be so befuddled by their own arguments, but parliamentary arithmetic means that my argument may win the day and lose the vote. That is life in the House these days.
I wish to draw to the House's attention the gross unfairness and lack of justice of the Government's proposals. They will leave an absence of choice for the defendant. Imagine a defendant who enters a police station at 2 am, perhaps after being beaten up, perhaps drunk. That man will be required to submit himself to the choice provided by the Lord Chancellor, and to no other choice. The Government's proposal is appalling, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to throw it out.

Mr. Burnett: For the record, in spite of the Minister's comments during the previous debate, my opposition to the state or salaried defender system is genuine. For the reasons I have often given, it is also absolute.
Why should an individual's choice be irrevocable? The Minister has made much of choice. Let me take him to a metaphorical police cell in a large city or a rural town. It is 3 am. An arrested person is brought into the station. His or her rights and options are read out. The defendant may be intoxicated—drunk, as they say, or high on drugs. How can he or she make a choice, let alone an irrevocable one? The defendant may find his or her lawyer's conduct unsatisfactory, or there may be a personality conflict. The defendant may wish to make a change, and should have an opportunity to make a reasonable choice. For that reason, I believe that the Bill should remain as the Lords left it.

Mr. Grieve: Nothing makes me more anxious about the matters dealt with by the previous amendments than the fact that, having established the principle of a criminal defence service, the Government have placed this proposal before us. As the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) said, people brought into a police station should be provided with rapid advice on their rights in respect of police questioning. That is what the duty solicitor scheme was all about, but it will be distorted if irrevocable choices must be made so that people are prevented from going to the legal representative of their choice if they are later charged. The two areas are quite distinct, and the blurring is unnecessary.
The proposal seems to be driven by a desire to save quite a small amount of money. It offends every tenet of civil rights and civil liberties. It is incomprehensible, and I hope that the Government will think again. Those who

pressed this matter to the vote in the other place knew exactly what they were doing. It is one of the most pernicious and noxious parts of the Bill.

Mr. Vaz: The arguments advanced are not new. We have heard them before, including the usual quotation of Henry Ford from the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), which is a strange one from a man who drives a Range Rover.
I am sorry that I cannot provide an assurance about drunks on the face of the Bill, but I can assure the House that no one will have to make a choice when he or she is drunk. The choice will be made when people are fit to be questioned. They will choose from a list of franchised and contracted firms. They will choose on the basis of the excellent duty solicitor scheme.
I was surprised by what was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett)—a distinguished stipendiary magistrate. He knows that the duty solicitor scheme works and that those who serve on it are people of quality. There is no question of people failing to receive legal advice and assistance of good quality.

Question put, That this House does not insist on Commons amendment No. 31:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 173.

Division No. 267]
[6.9 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caplin, Ivor


Ainger, Nick
Casale, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caton, Martin


Alexander, Douglas
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allen, Graham
Chaytor, David


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Church, Ms Judith


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Banks, Tony
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barron, Kevin



Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, Andrew F
Colman, Tony


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Berry, Roger
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Best, Harold
Corbett, Robin


Betts, Clive
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blackman, Liz
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cox, Tom


Borrow, David
Cranston, Ross


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cummings, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Browne, Desmond
Dalyell, Tam


Buck, Ms Karen
Darvill, Keith


Burgon, Colin
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dean, Mrs Janet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Denham, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Cann, Jamie
Dismore, Andrew






Donohoe, Brian H
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Doran, Frank
Laxton, Bob


Dowd, Jim
Lepper, David


Drown, Ms Julia
Leslie, Christopher


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Levitt, Tom


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Edwards, Huw
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Linton, Martin


Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McAvoy, Thomas


Fisher, Mark
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Macdonald, Calum


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McDonnell, John


Flynn, Paul
McFall, John


Follett, Barbara
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McIsaac, Shona


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McNamara, Kevin


Fyfe, Maria
McNulty, Tony


Galloway, George
MacShane, Denis


Gapes, Mike
McWalter, Tony


Gardiner, Barry
McWilliam, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gerrard, Neil
Mallaber, Judy


Gibson, Dr Ian
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Godsiff, Roger
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Martlew, Eric


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Grogan, John
Merron, Gillian


Gunnell, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hain, Peter
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moffatt, Laura


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Morley, Elliot


Heppell, John
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hinchliffe, David
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pearson, Ian


Hurst, Alan
Pendry, Tom


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pike, Peter L


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Plaskitt, James


Jenkins, Brian
Pope, Greg


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Prosser, Gwyn



Purchase, Ken


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Rammell, Bill


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rapson, Syd


Keeble, Ms Sally
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Kemp, Fraser
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rooney, Terry


Khabra, Piara S
Roy, Frank


Kidney, David
Ruane, Chris


Kilfoyle, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Ryan, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Salter, Martin





Sarwar, Mohammad
Timms, Stephen


Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sawford, Phil
Touhig, Don


Sedgemore, Brian
Trickett, Jon


Sheerman, Barry
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Singh, Marsha
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Skinner, Dennis
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Vis, Dr Rudi



Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wareing, Robert N


Snape, Peter
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
White, Brian


Spellar, John
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wills, Michael


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wilson, Brian


Stott, Roger
Winnick, David


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wise, Audrey


Stringer, Graham
Worthington, Tony


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wray, James


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. David Clelland and


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. Kevin Hughes.


NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Allan, Richard
Curry, Rt Hon David


Amess, David
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Day, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Baker, Norman
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Beggs, Roy
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Evans, Nigel


Bercow, John
Faber, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fabricant, Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Fallon, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fearn, Ronnie


Boswell, Tim
Flight, Howard


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Forsythe, Clifford


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brake, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Brazier, Julian
Fraser, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Garnier, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burnett, John
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Burstow, Paul
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Cash, William
Gorrie, Donald


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gray, James



Green, Damian


Chidgey, David
Greenway, John


Chope, Christopher
Grieve, Dominic


Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hague, Rt Hon William



Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip


Collins, Tim
Hancock, Mike


Colvin, Michael
Harris, Dr Evan


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Harvey, Nick


Cotter, Brian
Hawkins, Nick






Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Randall, John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Rendel, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Robathan, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Jenkin, Bernard
St Aubyn, Nick


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Sayeed, Jonathan



Shepherd, Richard


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Keetch, Paul
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Soames, Nicholas


Key, Robert
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Spring, Richard


Kirkwood, Archy
Steen, Anthony


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Leigh, Edward
Swayne, Desmond


Letwin, Oliver
Syms, Robert


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Livsey, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Luff, Peter
Townend, John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tyrie, Andrew


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Walter, Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wardle, Charles


Malins, Humfrey
Waterson, Nigel


Maples, John
Webb, Steve


Mates, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whitney, Sir Raymond


May, Mrs Theresa
Whittingdale, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moore, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Willetts, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Willis, Phil


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Oaten, Mark
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Öpik, Lembit
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard



Paice, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Pickles, Eric
Mrs. Jacqui Lait and


Prior, David
Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Government amendments (a) and (b) agreed to.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 56 considered.

Mr. Vaz: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Mr. Vaz: The House will remember the speeches of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) during the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. The House heard how important bodies including the Law Society and Shelter considered the continuing availability of no win, no fee agreements to be in cases brought under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
I said at the time that I was sympathetic to the arguments, but needed to consider the fine balance between the deserving cases that had been outlined and

the importance of keeping conditional fee agreements out of criminal cases. Since the Report stage, the Government have been considering further the arguments put to us by the House, in another place and by various campaigning organisations. As the House knows, ours is a listening Government. We have concluded that it is right that no win, no fee agreements should remain available, and that is why we have now tabled the amendment.
The Lords amendment, which was moved by Lord Goodhart, would broaden the effect of amendment No. 56 so that it excluded from the scope of the Bill not only non-contentious business agreements, but any form of fee agreement enforceable at common law, typically conditional fee agreements with no uplift, which are often known as Thai Trading agreements. However, it is the specific intention of clause 29 to bring Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the conditional fee legislation, both to secure the greater certainty that statute law provides and to ensure that they can be properly regulated, for example by requiring solicitors to give relevant information to potential clients.
It is obviously right that consumers who enter Thai Trading agreements should have the same protection as uplift cases that may be conferred by regulations under new section 58(3)(c) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, which clause 29 would insert. By contrast, non-contentious business agreements, if they are excluded by amendment No. 56, can be regulated instead under the Solicitors Act 1974.
However, Lord Goodhart made it clear that all he was really trying to do was preserve the position of solicitors entering into Thai Trading agreements in respect of proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act. Section 82 allows people aggrieved by a statutory nuisance—for example, inadequate housing—to seek an order for that nuisance to be put right. Those cases are heard in a magistrates court and are technically criminal cases, although they are in reality brought to enforce a civil right.
Conditional fees are not permitted in criminal cases under the existing legislation, and that position is maintained by the Bill. However, as a result, the effect of bringing Thai Trading agreements into the scope of the legislation so as to be able to regulate them in the consumer interest is to outlaw them in those section 82 proceedings.
The Government have considered with great care the options for resolving the problem. In particular, we have been reluctant to make an isolated exception to the principle that conditional fees are inappropriate in criminal cases. However, on balance, the Government are now persuaded that no win, no fee agreements where there is no uplift—for example, Thai Trading-type agreements—should remain available to individuals seeking to enforce their rights in that type of case. Housing disrepair is one of the Government's stated priority areas for the community legal service and we accept that it would be perverse to remove an effective route for gaining access to justice in that area.
As I have explained, the solution proposed by Lord Goodhart went too far. However, the only way open to the Government to achieve the desired result was to allow his amendment to pass last week and then to try to perfect it in this House. The issue is best dealt with by amendment to new section 58A(1)(a) of the Courts and


Legal Services Act. That provision was not amended in the Commons and so could not be amended last week in the other place.
The Lord Chancellor accepted Lord Goodhart's amendment for the time being, on the basis that we would table an amendment here to deal squarely with the position in Environmental Protection Act cases. That is what Government amendment (a) would do, and I am sure that it will meet with the agreement of hon. Members on both sides of the House. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Hawkins: The Minister is absolutely right to say that we welcome the Government's belated acceptance that the Opposition were right all along to table in Committee and on Report amendments that were almost identical to the amendment that Government now propose.
I am delighted to welcome the Government's change of mind. In the debate on Report, the Minister said that, at that stage,
The Government do not believe that such a careful consideration of the issues is possible in the time that the Bill will be considered by the House.
He went further, stating his belief that
it would be most inappropriate, and possibly unjust, to make a single exception
of the type that we were then proposing. He said that there was "nothing unique" about the provisions of section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and that he was concerned that
There well may be provisions elsewhere in the criminal law with similar effect so that conditional fees might be a possibility.
According to him, the Government's then position was that
If we are to consider breaching the general principle, it is important that that is undertaken on a logical basis and is not piecemeal.
He added that "such a breach", as he called it,
can be undertaken only after very careful thought about the impact of conditional fees—regardless of whether enhanced fees are being sought"—
in other words, Thai Trading-type uplift cases—
in the criminal justice process."—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 1050.]
However, wiser counsels have clearly prevailed in the succeeding weeks.
The debate in another place was somewhat contorted. After the Lord Chancellor had spoken, Lord Mishcon asked:
My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord set a precedent in this House so far as he knows for recommending the acceptance of an amendment which in fact he does not accept?
To which the Lord Chancellor replied:
My Lords, I rather think that it is a record, yes."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 1999; Vol. 604, c. 435.]
It was indeed an extraordinary position. Nevertheless, I am delighted that the Government have finally reached this conclusion. The Lord Chancellor said that the position is not free from complexity. The Government's contortions before they finally accepted that the Opposition were right all along—right in Committee and

right on Report—have not been free from complexity either, as the debate in another place on 14 July made clear.
6.30 pm
I shall briefly set out the reasons why the Opposition and charitable organisations such as Shelter were so concerned about this matter. Now that we have finally persuaded the Government to accept our arguments, it is important to set out precisely what they are. Our arguments were also made by the Law Society and Shelter.

Mr. Vaz: It is uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman to be so grudging. The Lord Chancellor set out clearly his reasons for accepting the amendment and the Government have listened to the arguments that he and others have advanced. Why can the hon. Gentleman not just say thank you?

Mr. Hawkins: Perhaps the Minister misunderstands me. I do not wish to be grudging and I have said already that we are pleased that the Government have accepted our arguments. However, it is important to set out the strength of the case so that those who examine our proceedings may understand it clearly.
Shelter and the Law Society pointed out that the decision of the Court of Appeal in Thai Trading Co v. Taylor, which was reported in The Times of 6 March 1998, is now incorporated in full. The Court of Appeal's decision in that case overruled a previous decision of the divisional court in the case of British Waterways Board v. Norman, permitting legal representatives to act in housing disrepair cases in magistrates courts on behalf of tenants of low means.
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have dealt with such cases in their legal practices and I am sure that almost all hon. Members have been approached at their surgeries or by letter about cases involving tenants of modest means. Legal aid has never been available to such tenants because proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are technically criminal proceedings. Therefore, those tenants have relied on lawyers who were prepared to act on their behalf on a purely speculative basis. The exclusion of all criminal proceedings from Thai Trading-type conditional fees thus bars any such speculative arrangements.
The Government's amendment will remedy the situation. The Government have incorporated the European convention on human rights into British law and they must certify that every Act of Parliament will comply with it. In approaching hon. Members who were interested in the Bill in Committee, Shelter pointed out that, unless the amendment was made, the certification that the Bill complied with the European convention on human rights could not properly be given. An amendment advancing that case was moved initially by Lord Goodhart in another place, and it was withdrawn only after the Government said that they would consider the issue further and, if it was thought appropriate at some later stage, might table their own amendment. The Government have finally done so at this very late stage.
In Standing Committee, the Minister's predecessor, the present Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), said that


he could not accept an amendment that would make taxpayers' money available for representation for summary complaints that are technically criminal proceedings because they require a complaint to a magistrates court to be issued. He went on to say:
I believe that other methods of funding such as no-win, no-fee agreements of the type that we constantly discuss can be used and the non-availability of legal aid does not prevent a complainant from taking a reasonable case to court."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 4 May 1999; c. 160.]
Shelter was concerned that Parliament should give people the right to take action in respect of housing disrepair and certain other nuisances.
Sadly, in many towns and even some villages in this country there are tenants of houses in disrepair who have limited means. They have no opportunity to fund from their own resources the cost of taking enforcement action. Therefore, the proceedings taken under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 are the only effective means of securing a remedy for such tenants. The Law Society pointed out that, as part of their pro bono work, many solicitors take on those cases on a speculative basis. The Minister mentioned earlier that he used to work in a law centre and that those centres frequently take up such cases. There is a concern that people may be entitled to free legal advice in law centres under the green form scheme, but may not necessarily be able to take the proceedings any further.
By accepting the amendment at this late stage, the Government will give statutory force to the full effect of the Court of Appeal's decision in respect of Thai Trading. The Court of Appeal overruled the decision of the divisional court in the earlier case of British Waterways Board v. Norman—which was a housing disrepair case—which held that solicitors could not recover costs in successful cases when they had acted speculatively.
When Shelter briefed all Committee members, it pointed out that a range of legal services for people with housing problems was provided through its nationwide network of housing aid centres by a legal team with a wealth of experience in taking housing cases such as this through the legal system. Shelter is concerned to protect disadvantaged citizens who are in urgent housing need. It pointed out correctly that the section 82 prosecutions under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provide a vital remedy for many of Shelter's clients who otherwise have no effective means of combating conditions that may jeopardise their health and that of their families.

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend mentioned solicitors doing pro bono work. For many years, practitioners in criminal law found themselves in a difficult position. When clients presented with difficulties relating to the Environmental Protection Act, solicitors were not sure how far beyond the green form they could go and often had to act pro bono in order to assist their clients.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend has the benefit of extensive knowledge and practice in this area. He is right to draw attention to the social service provided by solicitors who took up such cases on a pro bono basis.
When Shelter originally made representations to Committee members about the Bill, it pointed out that, if the Government did not accept the amendment and neither made legal aid available nor allowed conditional fees to

fund the cases, many of the clients whom Shelter was established to represent would be denied access to justice—which is the very title of the Bill—and therefore essential work to improve their living conditions would not be carried out. We welcome the fact that, at this late stage, the Government have accepted the force of our arguments both in Committee and on Report. I hope that many tenants of limited means will receive protection in future under the 1990 Act as a result of the Government's wise decision.

Mr. Burnett: I shall not detain the House for long. I welcome the Minister's speech and I welcome wholeheartedly this concession. I pay tribute to my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, who has done so much work on this Bill—particularly this aspect of it. We are grateful to the Government and are entirely happy to support the amendment.

Mr. Malins: I declare an interest as a solicitor who has practised in the criminal field over many years. I qualified in 1971, just after a housing boom, and I spent many years helping people with difficult housing cases. I shall turn to that matter in a moment. I declare an interest also as a recorder of the Crown court and an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, in which capacity I try matters judicially. That is relevant because the debate relates to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and summonses thereunder, and, for many years, I have viewed the problem from both ends, as a practitioner and a sitting member of the judiciary.
With that background, I can say that most of us who practised criminal law—I mostly did so outside London—found conditional fee arrangements wholly irrelevant to our way of life as criminal practitioners. We practised under a legal aid system or a private system. Under the latter, we could charge a fair rate for the job, but if the client was entitled to legal aid, we applied for that aid and got it. Conditional fee arrangements were nothing to do with us. Whenever it is said, as it has been said by the Government, that conditional fee arrangements are not appropriate in criminal proceedings, that strikes a chord with me.
I was, however, struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said a few moments ago about Shelter and its support for the proposal to allow proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act to be funded by conditional fee agreements. Why was I struck by that? During my days in practice, when clients came to see me about an issue relating to their housing, it was difficult for me to know what to do.
As my hon. Friend, who practised the law for many years, would agree, a solicitor could help someone to a limited extent only on what was called the green form system, but, as far as I recall—I will be corrected if I am wrong—no legal aid was available to take a landlord to court under the Environmental Protection Act. That was regarded as a great gap in the system. What happened? Many of us decided to act on a pro bono basis, in the days when that was common practice—more of that in a moment.
Let me now refer to Shelter. When I was considering what I had to contribute to the debate, I was struck by the good work done by the Minister for London and


Construction over many years before he came into the House. As I recall, in his former capacity, the hon. Gentleman was heavily involved in Shelter. I believe that it was there that I first met him because he had a deep interest, as I did, in remedies for tenants in very poor housing.
The first seat that I fought was Liverpool, Toxteth, in both general elections in 1974. I subsequently fought the Lewisham, East seat in 1979 and then Croydon, North-West, which I was privileged to represent for many years. One of the common features of those constituencies was that they had poor housing and tenants who suffered as a result. They would often come to see me about housing at my surgeries—an experience that I am sure is shared by many hon. Members. My constituents came to me, described the problems of condensation or unsafe electricity in their home and invited me to come and see their home.
Many hon. Members will have been to such rented flats or houses in their constituency to find out what is going on. We find ourselves saying to tenants, "You must act. We shall do what we can as Members of Parliament, but you have to follow proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act."
6.45 pm
When I first met the Minister for London and Construction, as he now is, he was heavily involved in Shelter, and I return to Shelter for my next few comments because it has been hugely influential in housing and has constantly offered its support for the proposition that proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act should be funded by conditional fee agreements. Pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, who sits on the Front Bench, and a satisfactory approach by the Government have enabled us to reach a happy conclusion.

Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's concession demonstrates, among other things, the value of Shelter's work with hon. Members on both sides of the House? My hon. Friend may be slightly shocked to hear that, on a previous occasion, the Minister expressed surprise that any Conservative Member should quote Shelter in support of his or her arguments. However, one of Shelter's big advantages, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, is that it has always been prepared to work with all parties in making its case. In its current campaign, which involves football, it is working with the all-party House of Commons football team.

Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out what is self-evident: Shelter is, and has been for many years, interested in housing problems and, in my experience, it is without political affiliations. Hon. Members on both sides of the House support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going wide of the amendment before us. He should address his remarks to the amendment.

Mr. Malins: I am most grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was tempted by my hon. Friend.

It is most unlike me to stray from the subject of the amendment. We are discussing the narrower issue of conditional fee agreements in so far as they relate to proceedings under the Environmental Protection Act. I should have gone no further than saying that Shelter supports the proposition, and I propose to go no further now.
The concept of the tenant being unable to receive legal help with complaints against a bad landlord is one with which no Member of the House should be happy. The ability for us to say that conditional fee agreements should apply to proceedings under section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act is a major step forward. It is more significant than many hon. Members appreciate, because it takes a huge step towards enabling tenants to obtain justice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said, Shelter has supported that proposition throughout.

Mr. Tim Collins: My hon. Friend is developing a powerful rationale for welcoming the Minister's concession on this point, but does he believe that the concession would have been necessary if the Government had, at an earlier stage, listened to Shelter's powerful advocacy? Does not the fact that the concession was made at such a late stage cause concern about the extent to which the Government listen to Shelter on matters across the board?

Mr. Malins: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. There seems now to be consensus on this matter. I have attended many debates in this House in which I have witnessed sharp disagreements between Front-Bench Members, but I have been pleasantly surprised this afternoon to see this measure of agreement and the welcome that we are offering the Government on this point. My hon. Friend may well be right. It has taken concerted pressure not only from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and other colleagues but from Shelter and other organisations to persuade the Government to permit the use of conditional fee agreements.
What will be the benefits of that proposal for tenants? First, let us consider its effect on the legal profession. It will make life much easier for the legal profession. Hitherto, lawyers could give very little help to a person who had a complaint against a landlord; now the position is different. Hitherto, they had to act pro bono or simply turn the person away and send them off to the citizens advice bureau.
How else will tenants in such a position benefit as a result of what we are deciding? Shelter will be able to become much more involved. It is not generally known that Shelter greatly helps many people who have housing problems. It has clients who have urgent needs, and it rightly says that such people should have access to justice and that their cases should be dealt with speedily and efficiently by the courts. It is terribly important that such tenants get justice.

Mr. Baldry: My hon. Friend is talking about benefit to the profession and citizens, but the concession can be of no benefit to anyone unless it is promulgated. As he says, for a very long time, those concerned by such landlord-tenant matters have not had access to legal aid and have not therefore tended to go to solicitors.


They have tended to have recourse to citizens advice bureaux or similar legal rights centres. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this and other reforms are to work, it is vital that the Government properly publicly promulgate them in a widespread publicity campaign?

Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with our debates is that so many people outside the House do not hear the results of them. Following his suggestion, I strongly urge the Government to adopt the very sensible policy of ensuring that a summary of this debate, the point that has emerged from it and the decisions that we have reached is circulated to all bodies that need to know. That includes the Law Society, the Bar, firms of solicitors and every housing body that has anything to do with helping tenants.
Many of us in the House have regretted over many years the fact that tenants have been disadvantaged under the Environmental Protection Act through not being able to receive legal aid. It is all very well to get an hour's legal advice under the green form, but the ability to go to court to enforce one's remedy, often against a landlord who is a nasty piece of work, is very important. I therefore join those who have welcomed the progress.
Labour Members will say that I have spoken for too long, and they may be right. However, I must conclude with the observation that, as a practising solicitor, I found it very sad that so many people with a remedy could not have it enforced. Following the pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and Shelter, the Government have reached a view on the Lords amendment that is in accordance with very good sense. I very much hope that they will lose no opportunity in ensuring that news of what we have all decided is spread widely throughout the legal world and the world of practitioners.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 56 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof agreed to.

Employment Relations Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2 to 6, 7, 21, 23, 28 to 31, 319 and 330 agreed to.

Clause 10

RIGHT TO BE ACCOMPANIED

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 5, line 5, leave out ("the worker")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Battle.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14.

Mrs. Angela Browning: I rise to probe the Government. The Bill, as amended in another place, clearly defines that the person who will accompany a worker when he or she is in dispute and invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing must be an official of a trade union whom the union has reasonably certified in writing to have experience of, or received training in, acting as a worker's companion in such hearings.
The fact that someone has a right to be accompanied and may wish to be so accompanied is not in dispute. However, it would be helpful to know exactly what the Government mean by "reasonably certified". Who will be the arbiter of that certification or the qualification of the person accompanying the worker as having received training?
As the Minister will know, concern has been expressed in both this House and another place specifically on the right of a worker to choose. Will the Minister clarify whether the trade union official will be from the worker's trade union or from a trade union from the worker's workplace or company? It is important that the worker should have confidence in the official who accompanies him or her, not only because the official may give technical or even legal advice, but because the official must be in a position to give the worker the moral support that is clearly desired. The worker must therefore have confidence in the relationship.

Mr. Tim Collins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Minister clarified in what, if any, circumstances the provision of a certificate from a trade union stating that an official had met the required standards could be withdrawn? It would be very damaging if, having once been certified, someone was decertified for such purposes because the trade union felt that that person was not the right official to represent someone. As she rightly says, the individual should have as wide a choice of officials as possible. We need to know whether a certificate may be withdrawn. Preferably, that should not be possible.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point.
I have a further question to ask of the Minister. Let us put ourselves in the position of an employer of a trade union official who is certified to carry out this work, and is called upon several times to accompany workers


to disciplinary or grievance hearings. What sort of arrangement will there be if that individual is required to travel to companies and locations well away from their workplace? What requirement, if any, might an employer reasonably make of that individual if they become a specialist and intend to fulfil that role, perhaps outside their workplace? It would help if the Minister would clarify some of the matters on which we have asked questions tonight.

7 pm

Mr. Collins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking many of the questions that I would otherwise have asked the Minister. I have one more question to ask in addition to that which I posed in my earlier intervention.
If the amendment is accepted and if the Bill is enacted, how will a trade union be defined? Hon. Members will be aware—and you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker—of the circumstances in which unions can, from time to time, fragment. We remember the Union of Democratic Mineworkers coming out of the National Union of Mineworkers 10 or 15 years ago. How is a union to be defined for these purposes? Who are the officials defined to be acting on behalf of that union? How is the process of change, as one union merges into another or splits away from a union, to be managed for the purposes of ensuring that courts can easily interpret this legislation, should it reach the statute book? I should be grateful if the Minister would address those points in his reply.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I understand that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) intends to probe, not resist, the amendments that the Government have made. That is welcome.
Amendment No. 8 is a straightforward grammatical amendment, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Similarly, amendments Nos. 12 and 13 correct a minor inconsistency.
The substance of amendments Nos. 9 and 10, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton addresses herself, concerns the list of persons who may be an accompanying person. Hon. Members will be aware that the subject was much discussed in the House and in the other place, and I think that it is fair to say, and widely known, that the Government resisted attempts to minimise the scope for people who are not fellow workers to act as that accompanying person. As the hon. Lady says, it is important that the individual has confidence in the person who stands with them, as it were. The Government resisted attempts to minimise the scope for two reasons. First, if we had not done so, the right would have been cast too narrowly and, secondly, it might well have excluded some of the most appropriate and effective individuals—experienced trade unionists who are highly qualified, skilled and trained—from performing a standard function of a trade union. I am grateful for the support given to the Government in the other place on this point during consideration of this part of the right.
I know that that consensus was evolving around our position and I pay tribute to the supportive remarks that were made in the other place about the wealth of expertise and experience that full-time and lay officials of trade unions can bring to bear during disciplinary and grievance proceedings. I believe that there is a good degree of consensus of support for that expertise.
However, we noted the concerns of those who believe that it might prove unhelpful or disruptive to allow inexperienced outsiders to participate in internal procedures. As a result, we redrew the list of people who may act as an accompanying person, with a view to ensuring that only those who are suitably qualified for the task will be entitled to act as the accompanying person. I should point out that the right for a fellow worker to act as a companion remains as it is. Indeed, in many cases, the fellow worker will also be the local union representative, so the changes really relate to the outsiders who can attend the hearing.

Mr. David Chidgey: I wish to clarify a point. The answer may be in another part of the Bill, which I have missed. Amendment No. 9 specifically says that the official is "employed" by a trade union. A few moments ago, the Minister said that the official could be employed part-time or full-time. But is there meant to be, or is there, a distinction between an official who is a paid employee and an official who is merely appointed as a representative?

Mr. Battle: The traditional definition of the difference between a lay representative and a trade union official is written into trade union law. The condition is that lay officials must be reasonably certified, in writing, by their union as having had experience of acting as an accompanying person or as having received training in performing that role.
The amendment does allow for certification to be withdrawn. Just as certification must be given in the first instance, to ensure that we get the right person into position and that people may have confidence—as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said—in that person, similarly, if it were proved that the person was ineffective, that could be raised with the tribunal by the person who objected to that representative, and they could ask for that certification to be withdrawn at the appropriate time.
I therefore hope that the amendments will give benefits to all parties to grievance and disciplinary hearings, because workers and employers need to be reassured and to rest easy that the accompanying person is an appropriate and competent person to do the job.

Mr. Collins: The Minister said that it was important that the accompanying person should be effective in the representations that they make on behalf of others, and he spoke about the possibility of withdrawing certification if someone proved to be ineffective. The words of amendment No. 10 simply talk about certification as
having experience of, or … having received training".
If one has experience or has received training, those things do not disappear with the passage of time. Might the Minister be saying that the courts, in interpreting the legislation, should have regard to something that is not in the terms of the amendment—effectiveness?

Mr. Battle: Let us test how the provision would work. I believe that it is up to trade unions to decide how they operate the accreditation process. By that I mean that they have a strong interest in ensuring that they field suitable lay representatives. Otherwise, full-time officials might have to be called in to sort out a problem caused by an


inappropriate person who had been sent in. I am tempted to add that, if that happened, a trade union's reputation might be damaged. It might lose the confidence not only of employers but of its members, because its service to its members would be seen to be second rate. Therefore, it is in unions' interests to get the process right.
As I believe that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) acknowledges, most trade unions already provide training for their lay representatives, often via courses, educational services and the Trades Union Congress. It is in a trade union's interests to satisfy itself that officials who can perform such work are competent to do it. Probably, unions will not consider issuing a certificate to new lay officials until they have completed a basic shop steward's course, for example, or have been in post for a certain length of time. I believe that that is appropriate because the condition is that lay officials must be "reasonably certified"—in writing, as I emphasised—by their union
as having experience of … acting as
an accompanying person or
as having received training in
performing that role.
I was asked how a union was to be defined. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale mentioned it, I remind him that the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 provides a clear definition of a union. An organisation would have to meet that definition in order for its officials to qualify as an accompanying person. I hope that I can reassure the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the purpose and intent of the amendments are to sharpen up the clause and give people rights to which they are entitled.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the Minister. Before he concludes, will he address the point about the employers of people who act as the accompanying official to people appearing before tribunals? As I outlined, an employee might find that, as a consequence of being certified, he or she was spending such a lot of time on this specialised work that it was having an impact on the employment that he or she was expected to carry out. Will the Minister say a few words about how he envisages that situation?

Mr. Battle: The hon. Lady makes a fair point, but the whole purpose and tenor of the Bill is to develop a partnership at work. This is an absolute backstop case. The aim is not to be in a situation where an accompanying person is needed. Such a situation implies a failure by employers in the first instance to deal with grievances or disciplinary issues in an appropriate procedural manner. Tribunal proceedings detract from the focus of the employer and employee getting together and getting on with the job in a positive spirit. I accept the hon. Lady's point, but the purpose is to enable employees to have rights at work and to have people appropriately certified to stand by them if absolutely necessary and needed. Our intention is to reduce the number of occasions on which we need to be driven into those circumstances.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 15, after clause 13, to insert the following new clause—National security employees—
. Sections 10 to 13 of this Act shall not apply in relation to a person employed for the purposes of—

(a) the Security Service,
(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or
(c) the Government Communications Headquarters."

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 27, 297, 305 and 323, Lords amendment No. 323, amendments (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) thereto and Lords amendment No. 331.

Mr. Byers: I shall deal briefly with the amendment and then spend slightly longer on the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and his colleagues on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which raise some important points of principle. It is only right that the House should have the opportunity of discussing the way in which we want to treat these sensitive issues.
The amendments that were agreed to in the other place reflect a correct understanding in addressing the sensitive issue of national security. As drafted, clause 13(1) applies the right to be accompanied in grievance and disciplinary hearings to persons in Crown employment. It therefore applies to employment within the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government communications headquarters.
I am sure that the House will agree that the staff of the security and intelligence agencies rightly have a unique status. The sensitive nature of their employment sets them apart from other workers. We have therefore given further consideration to how their inclusion in this part of the Bill can reflect that particular position. We believe that there are amendments before the House that do precisely that. I hope that when Members have considered the amendments that were agreed in another place, they will agree with that approach.
This evening, the House will want to concentrate on amendments Nos. 323(a), (b), (d) and (e) in the name of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater. I hope that Government amendment No. 323(c) will go some way towards resolving the difficulties that can be identified in the right hon. Gentleman's amendments.
First, I shall address amendments Nos. 323(a) and (b). I shall then outline why we feel that amendment No. 323(c) is the appropriate way forward in dealing with these matters.
The Bill provides that a Minister may direct that an applicant and his representative be excluded from all or part of proceedings where the interests of national security require it. We anticipate that the power to exclude from all future proceedings will be used extremely rarely and only in the most extreme circumstances where national security interests could not be adequately protected otherwise.
When the applicant or his representative is excluded the Attorney-General or, in Scotland, the Advocate-General, may appoint someone to represent the applicant's


interests. However, we believe that the applicant, or his or her representative on their behalf, should always be entitled to make a statement of his or her case. We undertook in the House of Lords to ensure that this right could be provided. If right hon. and hon. Members address the detail in amendment No. 323(c), they will understand that we have tried to discharge the commitment that we gave in the House of Lords in the way that amendment No. 323 outlines.
7.15 pm
Amendment No. 323(c) ensures that the tribunal regulations that will be made with regard to proceedings involving national security matters will be able to provide the right to make a statement in accordance with our policy. Lest there be any doubt, the Government undertake that the regulations will provide that an applicant or his representative will always be able to make such a statement.
I hope that the amendment will be recognised as one that discharges the obligation and the commitment that we recognised and gave in the House of Lords. It will be underpinned by the regulations that, we shall wish to introduce. I give a commitment that, in drawing up those regulations, we shall need to consult members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of which the right hon. Member for Bridgwater is the Chairman. That is wholly appropriate because they have drawn a particular issue to our attention. I believe that we shall benefit from the advice that we might receive from the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee. I would certainly wish to do that.
Amendments Nos. 323(d) and (e) would enable the commissioners to review the exercise of a Minister's power of direction. I have considered the matter carefully and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bridgwater for the opportunity of discussing the matter with him yesterday and having time to reflect and to discuss with officials whether we could agree to the proposal. I shall be asking the House to resist the amendments, which contain technical flaws. I know that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that to be the last resort of a Minister who is struggling. I found myself in his position when in opposition.
There are three particular issues. First, the amendments would go beyond the agencies about which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned and extend the provision to all other Crown employees. That would go far wider than the group that we wish to address.

Mr. A. J. Beith: The Secretary of State must recognise that the circumstances would arise only in the case of a Crown employee whose ability to attend a tribunal or to be represented at it was removed because the Minister judged that it was a matter of national security. That would normally be only an employee of one of the agencies, or perhaps someone working in the Cabinet Office, for example, who had a similar national security involvement. It is because the Government have drafted this section of the Bill in terms of Crown servants rather than of agencies that it has such a wide theoretical application, but, in practice, a narrow one.

Mr. Byers: I understand that argument entirely. However, as I have said, the amendments would go

beyond the agencies with which the right hon. Gentleman is concerned. It may be that civil servants working in particularly sensitive areas would be affected. I accept that. However, I am not sure that they should be regarded in exactly the same way as the particular groups that I think the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues are concerned about.
There is a safeguard. If the individual feels that he has been treated in an inappropriate way, he will be able to seek judicial review at the time that the direction is made. The direction will be made publicly and the individual will know that that is the case. On the other hand, the commissioners must apply the principles of judicial review retrospectively. Parliament has decided that that is appropriate where the act under review was carried out secretly for obvious reasons. That is not so in the case of a power of direction. For those reasons, amendments Nos. 323(d) and (e) do not achieve the objective of the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his colleagues. It goes beyond that and changes fundamentally the powers that commissioners would have to review the exercise of the power of direction being operated by a Minister. Therefore we feel that it is an inappropriate step to take, and I shall be asking the House to resist it.
I believe that the opportunity of seeking a judicial review is the appropriate way forward. Legal aid is available in particular circumstances for judicial review. People who felt that they had been adversely treated as a result of a power of direction being exercised by the Minister would have recourse to that course of action. I believe that to be appropriate. There would be great difficulties if we accepted these two amendments.
To conclude, I hope that the House will agree with the amendments starting with amendment No. 50. In relation to amendments (a) and (b), I give the House an assurance that, in drawing up the regulations, we would want to consult the Intelligence and Security Committee about the detail of the regulations. I hope that in supporting amendment (c), the House will recognise that we are putting in place a mechanism which we hope will overcome some of the reservations.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Would it not be far better to have tabled amendments that would resolve all the issues now, rather than saying that the Government will do that in the future, through regulations and by other means? It would have been easy enough, if the Government had followed the recommendations made by the Intelligence and Security Committee in our annual report.

Mr. Byers: I hope that, by drawing up the regulations in consultation with members of the Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) serves, we will be able to accommodate the concerns that have been expressed, which I accept. Let the House be clear about that.
An important point has been raised in amendments (a) and (b). Since the conversation that I had with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater yesterday, I have been looking for a way of facilitating matters. I believe that, by giving the assurance about how we will draw up the regulations, we might be able to meet the honestly expressed concerns of the Committee.
I must ask the House to resist amendments (d) and (e). They would go beyond the powers that we give to commissioners at present. There is the opportunity for the individual to seek judicial review. In the circumstances, that is the appropriate course of action to take.

Mr. Tom King: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his initial response to the amendments. I am pleased that he has done us the courtesy of coming and responding to them himself. I am encouraged by that. I would otherwise be enormously disappointed by the response that we have so far received from the Government. I am encouraged because I believe that the Secretary of State is capable of listening to an argument and that if, on reflection, he considers it valid, he has the standing and the independence to accept the amendments. I proceed on that optimistic basis.
The Secretary of State will allow me, I hope, to point out that this is a remarkable occasion. We are not a Select Committee, although I understand why he slipped into that terminology. That is a tendentious area into which I shall not venture on this occasion. The composition of our Committee is remarkable. We are all parliamentarians. We probably have a majority in the Chamber at present—I warn the Secretary of State of the situation that he faces. He will note that we have considered the issues at great length and on an all-party basis.
I apologise to the Secretary of State for the fact that originally there was no concept of including such a provision in his Bill. He is being asked to include a recommendation that we made to the Prime Minister in our last annual report. After some impatience that a recommendation accepted by the Prime Minister had failed to make further progress, it was included as an amendment to the Bill at a very late stage in the Lords.
It is unfortunate for the Secretary of State that not only are we all parliamentarians with the capacity to move amendments to his Bill and his Lords amendments, but we then report the outcome—his response—to the Prime Minister. We are anxious to preserve his prospects and to comment favourably in our report, which we are currently drafting.
The House has never debated these issues. It has never heard anything about these matters. They were never part of the Bill. The Government have responded to calls for a necessary and sensible improvement to the law. I make no secret of the fact that that arises out of one particular case of a gentleman who has since taken his grievance beyond any reasonable length, to the extent of betraying a considerable number of people who worked in the intelligence services. His claims are full of errors because it is some time since he was in the Secret Intelligence Service.
However, the fact remains that that gentleman had a grievance. As a Committee, we sought to address what we considered a genuine grievance. He was denied what he thought were legitimate rights that would imply to other people other forms of employment.
I shall quote the paragraph that is the fons et origo of the proposal. It states:
The Committee also believes that everything possible should be done to ensure that employees of the Agencies have the same rights as employees elsewhere. One of these is access to industrial tribunals. Under current procedures, industrial tribunals may hear cases involving national security, in camera and possibly with the Tribunal President sitting alone. However, if this is deemed not to be sufficient protection where vital national security matters may be involved, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate preventing an individual from having access to a tribunal.
That is what happened in that particular case. The Committee report continued:
The Tribunals established under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994 were not set up to handle complaints involving staff of the Agencies, and have made clear their view that they are not adequately equipped to do so.
Our recommendation was this:
We believe that it ought to be possible to constitute a tribunal of members and staff qualified to serve a normal industrial tribunal, but of the necessary integrity and security clearance to handle such potentially sensitive material, and we so recommend.
The Prime Minister accepted that recommendation and eventually, after much discussion, the Employment Relations Bill was identified as the vehicle to which the amendment should be attached. Last week, rather late in the day, without the Committee having been consulted about the final form, which might have avoided some of the problems facing us, the amendments were tabled in the House of Lords.
That was done in some rush. Lords amendment No. 323 provides that section 4(7) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 shall cease to have effect. I hesitate to point out to the Secretary of State that, as far as I can see, it should cease to have effect, because the Act does not exist. The reference could be to the Employment Rights Act 1996 or the Industrial Tribunals Act 1996, but I have not been able to identify the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 which the amendment claims will cease to have effect. The Vote Office searched high and low for such an Act, but the reference throughout the clauses seems to be to a non-existent Act.
I do not know what mechanism exists within the procedures of the House to deal with that. This is the last stage of the Bill, which now goes for Royal Assent, subject to any amendments that may go back to another place if the Lords amendments are disagreed to. We want amendments to be made.
7.30 pm
The purpose of our exercise was to ensure that the rights enjoyed by a person in such a situation were as near to being equivalent to those enjoyed by any other employee involved in any other activity as was reasonably possible, having paid due regard to national security. After the amendments on which we were not consulted had been made, we were extremely concerned to find that a provision had been included that enabled a Minister of the Crown to make a regulation to direct a tribunal to exclude an applicant from all or part of his own employment tribunal proceedings. I doubt whether anything could more obviously negate the purpose of making the improvement that we have suggested and which we thought the Government had accepted. That is why we have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 323, which applies to the applicant, and amendment (b), which applies to his representative.
The Secretary of State rightly said that it was immediately acknowledged in the other place that that provision was unacceptable. Although I accept that Government amendment (c), which has been tabled today, fulfils the undertaking that was given in the other place, we believe that it does not entirely meet our concerns. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) may have something to add on that point.

Mr. Rogers: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the provision was obviously included by mistake. The Government, Labour Members and the party which I represent are all in favour of trade union rights, and the very idea of preventing a person and his representative from putting his case in front of a tribunal would be complete anathema to every Labour Member. A drafting mistake has obviously been made.

Mr. King: That is what we believe. Our inquiries suggest that the provision has been lifted straight from immigration tribunals legislation and transferred across, in toto and perhaps at some speed, to the Bill. I am grateful that, as soon as the matter was raised, it was recognised that that position could not be sustained, that a drafting error had been made and that further consideration was required. I hope that we can take the Government a step further so that they recognise that they should go all the way and accept our amendment.
In view of the Government's public statements and what I believe to be their genuine philosophy in respect of this matter, I should be amazed if they resisted our amendments. They deal with circumstances in which a Minister decides on national security grounds that he has to take quite exceptional steps that would normally be quite unacceptable, such as excluding somebody from part of his own industrial tribunal hearing without any review being undertaken by anybody thereafter.
The Secretary of State has said that such a person could have a judicial review—at his own expense, I imagine—but a chap who has lost his job and is complaining about unfair dismissal would find that he has been excluded from his own hearing or a major part of it. He would not hear any of the evidence against him and he would be able to challenge what he considers to be an unreasonable act only at his own expense. For those reasons, I said at the beginning of my remarks that I hope and believe that the right hon. Gentleman is the sort of Minister who will listen to arguments. I appreciate that this issue has been bounced on him and that it is not germane to the main purposes of the Bill, but he has to take responsibility for it.
The other problem—for which I do not apologise, because we did not create it—is that it is so late in the day that this is the last chance that anyone has to put things right. The Secretary of State may feel that he could be exposed to criticism, and the first person who might criticise him may be the Security Service Commissioner, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith. I am not sure whether it has been drawn to his attention that Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's most recent report said that something should be done about this matter. On the tribunal, he said:
In my earlier reports I drew attention to the unsatisfactory position regarding the Tribunal and their statutory position in relation to complaints from employees of the agencies who seek

redress in relation to those matters which, but for security considerations, might have been dealt with by an Industrial Tribunal. I am disappointed that it has taken so long to find an effective remedy to this important problem but I am advised that the DTI, having consulted Ministers, are now working on a detailed proposal.
That was said by the very commissioner to whom we are seeking to entrust responsibility for review.
We consulted Lord Justice Stuart-Smith yesterday about the amendment that we have suggested. He has responded and I have been authorised by him to say that, if the amendment is acceptable to Parliament, he is content to undertake the proposed review in addition to his existing duties under the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994. He makes a further point, which was also made by the Secretary of State. He understands that the proposed amendment relates to all Crown servants. If so that is so, he would feel unable to express any view on whether he would be able to deal with the volume of work or whether he would be qualified to do so.
The point about Crown servants has already been well made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in an intervention. As currently drafted, the proposals on the tribunal apply to the Secret Intelligence Service, the Security Service and Government communications headquarters, Cheltenham, but this problem could arise in respect of someone who was sacked from a position of Crown employment. People who work for the joint intelligence staff, on the assessment side and in the Cabinet Office dealing with national security matters are affected by national security considerations. This is the only opportunity that we have to help them and the Bill is the only relevant legislation before the House.
If such people feel that they have been unfairly sacked—the Secretary of State would be the first to defend them in such a situation—they are entitled to their rights and they are entitled to go to a tribunal. If they find that they are excluded from their own hearing on grounds of national security, is not it right that there should be some review of the Minister's authority? That is all we are asking. I shall answer Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's question: we know of only one such case. Does the Secretary of State know of any more?
The case of which I am aware has provided the substance for the amendment that we have tabled. I do not know of any others. If a huge number of people are being excluded from their normal rights on grounds of national security, a commissioner had better look at this issue and we need a full and proper safeguard. The Committee certainly wants the procedure regulations, to which the Secretary of State referred, to cover such eventualities and the way in which such matters should be handled. As a free man, if I may use that expression, the Secretary of State would be the first to fight for that and the first to say that Parliament should put such safeguards in place. That is what Parliament should be doing. It should be protecting the rights of people in such situations.
It would be wrong to leave this significant power with no question of being reviewed. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith asks whether our proposal is meant to be some sort of remedy. We have not taken it that far, but have said that one should at least provide the protection that exists: the commissioners are charged with reviewing how Ministers—the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary,


in the main—use the exceptional powers that override the normal law, which they are entitled to use to protect the national security. That protection is independent and distinguished. The commissioners review the exercise periodically and report to the Prime Minister on how those exceptional powers have been used.
Is not this proposal just such an exceptional power? If the amendments are rejected, the Secretary of State will leave Ministers with an exceptional power that will be subject to no review, except at the expense of the applicant by judicial review. In spelling that out, I do not seek to make a party political point. In a sense, I am embarrassed because I appreciate that this matter has been wished on the Minister—he did not ask to deal with it. However, the Intelligence and Security Committee debated it at considerable length and concluded that the objective was right and proper. We originally identified it some three years ago.
What we are debating tonight, late in this Session, and for the first time on the Floor of the House, are the arrangements to put a proper protection in place. I understand that it is a particularly difficult and awkward challenge for the Secretary of State, but I believe that he will able to rise to it and say that, in the current circumstances, he will not leave the matter unsettled and that the Government are prepared to put in place the necessary protections. The arguments that I have sought to make, and which other hon. Members may seek to make, are acceptable not just to me but to every member of my committee of all parties—senior Members of each party were represented on it—and to Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, so I fail to see why they should not be acceptable to the Secretary of State. The Committee would appreciate it if he could accept our proposals.

Mr. Chidgey: In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State said that he intended to consult on the amendments. Having heard the speech by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who made an eloquent and powerful case for the amendments, the Secretary of State has an opportunity to consult and reflect on the foot, so to speak.
May I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on one further point? Not long ago, before the last general election, there was a cri de coeur from the Labour party that those employed at GCHQ would have the right to rejoin a trade union. There is not a great deal of difference between denying the right to free association and denying the right to free representation in a criminal sense. It does not sit well for the Government, who rightly made such a campaign out of the right to free association in a security setting at GCHQ, not to recognise the rights of those individuals now to have free representation and presence at their own examination.
I hope that the Secretary of State can see the synergy between those two points of principle, and the way in which the Government will be regarded if they do not see that those points are compatible.

Mr. Beith: The Committee chairman described extremely comprehensively why we tabled the amendments. If there are deficiencies in the drafting of amendments (a), (b), (d) and (e), they are entirely my fault because I was given the job of drafting them. However,

they are better drafted than the clause to which they were attached, which produced an unimaginable situation in which the object of this entire exercise—an employee of one of the agencies who has hitherto been denied an industrial tribunal when dismissed—would be refused admission to that very tribunal when it is granted.
The Committee, which has a fair amount of experience of security and intelligence matters, could not envisage circumstances in which it would be appropriate or necessary to exclude the applicant from every part of the proceedings. We scratched our heads, but could not think of any. We asked the agencies, and they could think of no circumstances either. Such a provision has not even been sought by the agencies in question; it was simply bad drafting in the first place.
The Minister has responded to that. When my noble Friend Lord Razzall moved an amendment in the other place, the Minister gave the undertaking that he is fulfilling in his amendment (c). Although that amendment is welcome because it goes 50 or 60 per cent. of the way towards what we want, much remains to be done. All that that amendment guarantees is that the applicant will be able to state his case before being thrown out. He will not be able to hear or challenge any of the evidence on which his dismissal is based, or even to know what that evidence is.
I can envisage circumstances in which it will be necessary for the applicant and his representative to be excluded from part of the proceedings. I am sure that other Committee members can envisage them, too. For example, an applicant might then gain access to further information, which he might subsequently misuse as a result of his grievance against the agency. A case might require the presentation of some evidence of that kind. However, excluding an applicant simply from making his case is such a restriction on his rights that there should be a very high threshold to be crossed before that power can be used. A strong protection should be built in, as well as a review of how the power has been used.
We tabled our original amendment because regulations could not have provided those protections so long as the statute made it clear that the Secretary of State was entitled to exclude the person from the entire proceedings. It was necessary to change the basic clause for the regulations to be manageable at all.
I think that we can make some progress on this point tonight. The regulations could build in thresholds and protections. I thank the Minister for his assurance that the Committee will be consulted on the detail of the regulations. The remainder of our argument—some 40 per cent.—could be met now if the regulations set a high threshold, which would have to be met before the power could be invoked. We all remain concerned, however, that the power is not capable of satisfactory review, other than by taking a case to court on judicial review at the applicant's expense. That is why we tabled the other two amendments.
The arguments that the Minister has made simply hold no water. He did not invent them—they have been provided for him. There is no flood of cases; there have hardly been any cases of this kind—none whatever in the category that he thinks represents an inconvenient addition to the total, which is people not in the agencies but in respect of whom a similar power might be used in the future. A commissioner review is appropriate because


the applicant cannot know why the power has been used. The Minister rested his case on the argument that the commissioners review matters that are otherwise secret. The reasons for using the power are secret. The applicant cannot know the nature of the evidence that requires him to be thrown out of the tribunal.
Somebody else must look at the matter. It is not sufficient to leave it to the tribunal, which does not have the power to bring the applicant back in—that is in the hands of the Minister. Somebody must have the power to report to the public that the power is being abused, and the commissioner is ideal for that purpose. That discipline would largely ensure that the power was not abused. I therefore strongly support what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) said and ask the Minister to think again, even at this late stage.
At the beginning of the Bill, there is a certificate of compliance with the European convention on human rights. After this clause was drafted and introduced in the other place, was it checked to establish whether the Bill still complies with the convention, given the restriction on the rights of the applicant that will result unless we carry some of the amendments?

Yvette Cooper: I shall be brief, as I had not intended to speak. I want to respond to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's objections to the amendments tabled on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He argues that there should be access to judicial review rather than to the commissioner, and that amendments (d) and (e) would significantly extend the powers of the commissioner.
Judicial review is not sufficient in the absence of the commissioner. Our argument is that all these cases should be reviewed by the commissioner, not only those in which the applicant has the confidence or the resources to take the case to judicial review. Given that the applicant will be excluded from the proceedings, he will be in a difficult position to know whether he has a case to take to judicial review, whereas the commissioner could examine all these matters without putting the applicant's resources at stake.
The second objection is that the amendments would significantly extend the powers of the commissioner. I do not see that as a problem. The only way in which they would extend the commissioner's powers would be in parallel with the extension of the Minister's powers under the Lords amendment, which gives the Minister the power to make a decision to exclude someone from the industrial tribunal in the first place. Under our amendments, the commissioner would be used in parallel with the additional powers given to the Minister on grounds of national security.

Mr. Byers: I am pleased that our approach on amendments (a) and (b) and our amendment (c) go 60 per cent. of the way towards meeting the concerns expressed by members of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I hope that, when we consult on the details of the regulation, we can get 100 per cent. satisfaction. That is almost impossible to achieve, but we shall try. We all want to achieve the principle that was articulated so well by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King).

Even though we are dealing with unique circumstances, the individuals involved should, whenever possible, have the protection of the usual procedures that we give to other citizens, and we should try to secure that.
However, a balance needs to be struck between the rights of the individual and the need to protect national security. We are clawing our way through consideration of how to achieve that balance. As I have discovered in the past 24 hours, these are complex areas, and we should take a careful approach.
I should like to discuss the regulations with members of the Committee, and I hope that that will go some way towards satisfying their concerns in amendments (a) and (b). The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) had difficulty finding the relevant Act in relation to the amendments that have been tabled. The Industrial Tribunals Act 1996 had its name changed by the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998. I am sure that he was fully aware of that, and of course I knew that all the time. I do not know why these difficulties are put in our way, but parliamentary counsel enjoy the little tricks that they play on us from time to time.
As to amendments (d) and (e), the key point is that I have not been able to meet the concerns expressed by members of the committee on both sides of the House. In the end, it will be a matter of judgment. My view is that we have a well-established procedure by way of judicial review to challenge a decision taken by a Minister of the Crown. It is now a fairly common occurrence to have a judicial review of decisions taken by Secretaries of State and by Ministers.
Legal aid is available for judicial review. I checked on that point yesterday, because I had a conversation with the right hon. Member for Bridgwater, and I was sympathetic to the point that if no finance is available, it will act as a deterrent to someone challenging a decision. Because of their unique nature, these may be exactly the circumstances in which the Legal Aid Board will look at a case sympathetically, so there may be some financial support.
The balancing judgment to make is between the remedies available by way of judicial review, and the remedies and powers that the commissioner will have. One of the weaknesses of amendments (d) and (e) is that, by relying on the commissioner, they do not give him the power to act effectively in these matters. The commissioner does not have a remedy at his disposal. He has no power to overrule the direction that may be given by the Secretary of State or another Minister. He cannot intervene or overturn the decision that is ultimately taken by the employment tribunal. It is a fiction of a solution to the problem. I believe that the real remedy is the judicial review. The individual who has a complaint and is concerned about the direction being used will be able to seek a judicial review, which is a well-established procedure.

Mr. Tom King: The Secretary of State bravely makes his case, but he should reflect on what he has just said, because it is an extraordinary argument. It is an argument against having commissioners in all these areas. The Intelligence Services Act 1994 states:
The Commissioner shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Prime Minister and may at any time report to him on any matter relating to his discharge of those functions.


The Secretary of State has said that no remedy is available to the commissioner. We have argued that the Bill will leave the plaintiff with no remedy, except to go on his own to the courts. If he is reasonably well paid—as he may well be—and has a little capital, he will not get legal aid.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman puts me at a disadvantage. I know that these are important matters, but he is making an intervention. It would help me if he would wind up.

Mr. King: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this is an exceptional situation. The Committee set up by the Prime Minister to advise on these matters is having to deal with an issue that has been incorporated in an inappropriate Bill on which we were not consulted. This measure has been introduced at the last minute. It was brought up in the other place, and this is the first time that it has been discussed in this House. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I think that the Secretary of State would accept from me that his argument will not wash. He is not prepared, in this legislation, to give people in the position that we have discussed a remedy. Our amendment would provide the most limited protection, but it would mean that, if he became Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary, before his officials put a proposal to him that someone should not be allowed to attend part of his own industrial tribunal hearing, they would know that his decision would be reviewed. They could not plead national security and total secrecy so that the matter could not be sustained.
If the Secretary of State were on the Opposition Benches, he would make a much better argument than I have, and he would murder the idea that the commissioner has no remedy. I beg him to reconsider, even at this late hour—that was not of our making. This is the last hour, because this legislation will soon become an Act. At the last gasp, the legislation will lack this vital ingredient. Our proposal would do the Government great credit.

8 pm

Mr. Byers: I understand the power of the arguments that are being put. In the end, the House will have to make a judgment. I believe that the procedure that is available to challenge a direction by judicial review is the appropriate remedy in the circumstances.
I know that members of the Committee would like the commissioner to have the power to intervene directly, but I feel that they should reflect on the role that the commissioner will play. That role will not involve the reviewing of individual cases; the commissioner will not operate in the way in which employment tribunals operate. It will involve the reviewing, in a more strategic way, of the workings of specific sectors. That is the right role for the commissioner, and that is why the House has not given the commissioner the power to intervene directly.
This was never seen as being the appropriate role for a commissioner. The commissioner has a distinct role: he is to report to and, no doubt, to put pressure on Parliament by means of the avenues open to him. I believe that that role, and the commissioner's responsibilities, will be subject to confusion if he is told that he should be involved in individual cases that are before an employment tribunal.

Mr. Beith: I realise that the right hon. Gentleman's Department does not normally deal with these matters,

but he must recognise that the commissioner's remit is to examine the way in which powers have been exercised in individual cases, and thereby to judge whether those powers have been abused. That relates directly to what the Committee seeks. It wants the commissioner to examine the way in which the Minister is using his power—not the substance of the issue before the tribunal—given that he possesses information that no one else has. That is what gives the function its value.

Mr. Byers: I think that I understand the position. The commissioner has not the power to intervene in relation to an individual's case, and he has no such power in relation to an employment tribunal. That is precisely the issue that is addressed in the amendment. The commissioner has the power to challenge decisions made by Ministers, and to review those decisions, but he has no such powers in relation to individuals before employment tribunals.
Opposition Members may disagree, but I believe that we have provided a suitable method for decisions to be made by Ministers of the Crown, by way of judicial review. It is well established, and I consider it wholly appropriate. I do not think that amendments (d) and (e), which would extend the commissioner's responsibility, will provide an effective remedy for the individual. I hear what the right hon. Member for Bridgwater says, but, in the circumstances that we are discussing, the individual will clearly want a way of remedying what he or she sees as a wrong.

Yvette Cooper: Amendments (d) and (e) would not prevent an individual from using the judicial review system as a remedy. Moreover, the proposed extension of the commissioner's powers would allow for an additional review of the Minister's decisions. That could take place in exactly the same way as the commissioner's review of other ministerial decisions on grounds of national security that infringe individual rights.

Mr. Byers: A range of opportunities can be provided, if that is what the House wants. My point is that a remedy is clearly available to an individual who feels aggrieved, in the form of a judicial review. I consider that to be an appropriate remedy, in that it provides the opportunities that the individual may seek. I feel that the opportunities offered by recourse to a commissioner are rather fictional in terms of the support that they can give the individual.

Mr. Tom King: I much appreciate the Secretary of State's courtesy in giving way again.
I fear that we are getting into a bit of a muddle. The right hon. Gentleman's concept of the commissioner's role does not conform to the way in which he will work: it is not a question of a chap having a right to go to the commissioner, as was suggested.
If the Committee that is appointed by the Prime Minister to report to him and advise him makes such recommendations, if the commissioner agrees that action is needed and is content to go along with it and if, as we understand to be the case, the agencies have no objection to the programme, why are the Government not willing to accept the amendments?

Mr. Byers: For the simple reason that we believe that the individual already has recourse to an appropriate


remedy. I know that the Committee feels strongly, has made representations and has reported to the Prime Minister; no doubt it will continue to do so, under procedures established by the House. However, I consider the existing procedures to be appropriate, and I do not think that they need to be added to it in the way suggested by amendments (d) and (e). I ask the House to resist the amendments if they are put to a vote.
I hope that I have been able to reassure the House in relation to Lords amendment No. 323, and amendments (a) and (b). I ask the House to support amendment (c), which discharges the undertakings that we gave in the House of Lords. I am sorry that I cannot accommodate members of the Intelligence and Security Committee in regard to amendments (d) and (e), but I believe that existing procedures in relation to judicial review are appropriate, and I do not think that the individual would be helped by the additional powers that those amendments appear to confer. For those reasons, if they are put to a vote, I shall invite the House to oppose amendments (d) and (e).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question, let me remind the House that amendments to Lords amendment No. 323 must be dealt with later. What we are now considering is Lords amendment No. 15.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS: DETRIMENT AND DISMISSAL

Lords amendment: No. 16, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("subject") and insert ("subjected")

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 17 and the Government motion to disagree thereto, and Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19, 26, 327 and 328.

Mr. Byers: I intend to concentrate on Lords amendment No. 17, which I shall ask the House to resist.
Lords amendment No. 16 is a relatively minor technical amendment. It proposes that the word "subject" should be changed to "subjected", simply to ensure consistency with wording elsewhere in the legislation. I hope that it will not detain the House for too long.
As I have said, I shall ask the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 17. We believe that employers and employees should continue to have the opportunity that they have now to conclude individual contracts which differ from collective agreements that would otherwise apply to individual employees. Nothing in the Bill will affect that. However, we also believe that individuals in the workplace who refuse such contracts and choose to remain covered by collective agreements should be protected against being subjected to dismissal or detriment as a result of the refusal. There should be no obligation, and there should be no incentive, for individuals to break out of collective agreements. We do not think that someone who wishes to remain within a collective agreement should suffer detriment as a result.
We therefore propose to draft regulations to achieve that policy objective. We will, of course, consult on the regulations in draft before presenting them to the House for approval under the affirmative procedure.
We cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Opposition in the House of Lords. We have two main problems with Lords amendment No. 17. First, it contains a fundamental weakness, in that it confuses two separate issues: the bargaining arrangements, and action to prevent or deter trade union membership. Those are clearly two distinct issues.
The amendment seeks to require section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992—the section that guarantees the right to join or not to join a trade union, and to take part in trade union activities—to be interpreted in accordance with the amendment, which has nothing to do with such matters. That is the confusion at the heart of amendment No. 17. It is concerned only with individual contracts and collective agreements. Therefore, that attempt to affect section 146 is dangerously imprecise and illogical.
Although we may understand the basic thrust of the amendment, it is unhelpful in that it is extremely detailed and restrictive, and will create difficulties when we introduce our regulations. For our regulations to be effective, they need to be drawn up in a way that is not constrained by the provisions that would be introduced as a result of amendment No. 17.
Therefore, I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17. We will introduce our own regulations. The House will have an opportunity to debate and to vote on them after we introduce them. We believe that that is an appropriate way in which to deal with the matter.
We feel that amendment No. 17 creates difficulties. It does not allow the individual to have freedom. The danger is that individuals will feel, effectively, that there is a deterrent to remaining within a collective agreement. We feel that there should be freedom to make a decision, not a method by which an individual may be punished.
That will be the principle of the regulations that we intend to introduce. For these to be effective, we will need the House to disagree with amendment No. 17, which was carried in the House of Lords.

Mrs. Browning: I will be happy to allow speedy progress on some amendments, but not amendment No. 17. What has happened as a result of the amendment bears full examination.
As the Secretary of State said, the amendment was introduced in Committee in another place by the Opposition. I go back to the beginning. Amendment No. 17 concerned continuation of the right of employees voluntarily to agree with their employer contracts that differ from those of a collective agreement that applies to them, as long as the different terms were agreed through a revised contract of employment, the employee had voluntarily accepted the new terms, and the employer's purpose in offering such terms was to further a change in his relationship with all, or any class of, his employees, as set out in section 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
It was thought in another place that the Government supported the amendment in principle. Indeed, we were led to believe that it was Government policy, not least


because we had looked carefully at the Government's White Paper "Fairness at Work", particularly paragraph 4.20, which is reinforced by annexe 1, paragraph 8. I am sure that it is engraved on the Secretary of State's heart, but let me remind him of what annexe 1 says:
The terms of agreements resulting from collective bargaining are normally incorporated into individual employees' contracts either explicitly or by custom and practice and thus set the minimum terms and conditions for all employees in the bargaining unit".
The annexe goes on:
Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government sees no reason to change it".
When the amendment was introduced in another place by my hon. Friend Baroness Miller of Hendon, there was quite a lot of discussion. It was Conservative peers who, in the absence of a Government amendment, sought to honour what they thought was a Government pledge—not least because of what is contained in the White Paper, and an indication in Committee from the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry that the Government would look at the matter. Therefore, there was an expectation that, before the Bill had proceeded too far through another place, the Government would table something similar to the amendment that is now part of the Bill.
8.15 pm
It is interesting to note what the Minister, as quoted in the Lords, said in respect of an employee who had refused to sign a personal contract:
The employee may … think that it is unreasonable of the employer to … give the employee a pay rise, but that is the employer's right".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 356.]
We think that an employer and employee should always be free to make their own bargain, notwithstanding union recognition in the workplace. There is a need for flexibility in respect of an employer rewarding people in the workplace, based on agreements—even individual agreements—with the work force. That was what we believed the Government felt was the state of play as well, but it was not the Government who introduced the amendment; it was Baroness Miller of Hendon.
After Baroness Miller of Hendon moved the amendment successfully in the Lords, a debate took place with Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He stated:
I sincerely congratulate the noble Baroness both on the care which she has clearly taken in drafting the amendment and on the evident passion with which she has moved it.
That seems to contradict the Secretary of State's words a moment ago, when he identified what he regarded as flaws in the drafting of the amendment. I should like him to comment specifically on why a Minister in another place congratulated Baroness Miller on the drafting of the amendment, but only a little while later, in the House of Commons, the Secretary of State said that he believed it to be flawed.
I continue with the words of the Lord McIntosh:
I think that I can assure her"—
Baroness Miller—
that we can achieve substantially the objectives which she wishes to achieve. As my noble friend Lord Simon explained in his letter of 10th May, in response to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, the Government hoped to replace the power in Clause 15 with a substantive provision and we hoped to bring forward an amendment in Committee.

It is thus clearly on the record that the Government, as we had anticipated, hoped to introduce such a measure, but we have received no explanation of why it was left to the Opposition—in the absence of that measure—to table successfully the amendment that we are discussing.
Lord McIntosh went on:
I am sorry that we have not been able to do so. but I am confident that we shall be able to produce an amendment on Report which will, in a sense, go further than that of the noble Baroness because, instead of adding to the regulatory power, which is what her amendment does, it will produce a substantive content in clause 15 instead of a purely regulatory power.
So clearly, at the close of the Committee stage, although the Government had been expected to table an amendment themselves in Committee, there was a firm commitment by the Minister to bring back a substantive amendment on Report as the Bill proceeded through another place.
Later, Lord McIntosh continued:
I repeat our apologies that we have not been able to produce the substantive amendment which we wished to introduce in Committee.
He concluded:
I hope that with the assurances and details I have given about the substantive amendment which we propose to introduce on Report, the noble Baroness will realise that we intend to introduce something which is along the lines of what the noble Baroness wants".
In other words, a firm ministerial commitment was given at the end of the deliberations in another place to bring the matter back on Report. Ministers acknowledged that the content of the amendment that we are discussing was not, apart from a few details, a matter of dispute. However, the Secretary of State seems now to have changed to his mind about that.
It was on the basis that there was little dispute about the amendment that my noble Friend Baroness Miller was asked to withdraw the amendment. Wisely, she did not do so, but put it to a vote instead. In the same debate, Lord McCarthy, in response to what Lord McIntosh said in support of the Opposition amendment, said:
Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he realises how much he is worrying some of us?"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 359–62.]
That was the first indication that not all Labour peers were happy with the Government's line. Perhaps the Secretary of State's neglect of the amendment tonight shows that the Government are responding to the concerns that have been expressed. If not, his approach is a mystery, given previous ministerial commitments about the amendment in another place. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State has not tabled a substantive amendment for debate tonight.
I believe that the Secretary of State has abused his position—and the ministerial commitments that are on record. Instead of allowing a proper and full debate this evening, he has promised that the matter will be subject to regulation at a later date. That has become a hallmark of the Government's approach.
In another existence just over a year ago, I was a member of the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill. The Secretary of State was then Minister of State with responsibility for school standards. It was typical of his approach then that he did not want matters to be debated in detail and pressed for a vote. He preferred to push them into the long grass, in the hope that regulation,


when it was introduced, would not be given the necessary scrutiny. This important amendment certainly warrants detailed scrutiny and debate.
Will the Secretary of State explain why the word of Ministers in another place can no longer be taken as a matter of honour? It is an insult to both Houses that commitments made on the record are not honoured.
There is considerable interest in the matter outside the House. Business has questions to which answers must be given in this debate. For example, what is meant by the phrase "detriment by his employer"? I should be grateful if the Minister would give the House a definition. What are the Government seeking to achieve with the power that the clause gives the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State make a clear and unambiguous statement about the right of employees voluntarily to agree with employers contracts that differ from those under the collective agreement that applies to them?
The White Paper and the Government's words both here and in another place appear to indicate that their policy was that employees had that right, but now they have performed a complete U-turn. As was said in connection with the previous group of amendments, this is the House's last chance to discuss these important matters in detail.
If the comments of Lord McCarthy in another place were indicative of concern among the Labour ranks, I hope that the Secretary of State is not involved in a cynical exploitation of the democratic process. With the trade union and party conference season just a few weeks away, is the Minister hoping to avoid putting in the Bill something that the unions will not like? Employees and employers want clarification of a matter that the Minister appears to want to kick into the long grass by saying that it will be dealt with in regulation rather than in the Bill.
The Secretary of State risks incurring contempt for the ministerial statements that have been made on the matter, and he will put in jeopardy the process by which hon. Members can debate amendments tabled in another place. I hope that he will explain why he has not tabled a substantive amendment to tidy up what he might perceive as flaws in the original wording. Amendment No. 17 states only that
this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.
That is a contempt of the democratic process.

Mr. Tony Baldry: In general, the Bill has not received much publicity, but this group of amendments—entitled "Detriment and dismissal; discrimination against part-time workers"—may soon attract a lot. The amendments go to the heart of the relationship between employers and employees.
The White Paper is very clear. It states:
As under existing law, individual employees will continue to have the right, should they wish, to agree terms with their employer.
The Bill contains only a limited definition of small firms, as we shall discuss later, but many people will continue to negotiate their own contract terms. The White Paper also states:
Under the existing law an employee and an employer can agree different terms if they wish. Since the current law works well, the Government see no need to change it.

The Secretary of State should explain what the Government are trying to achieve with these amendments, which contradict the White Paper.
I could understand the Government's approach if they considered that the amendments tabled in another place would enable employers to include discriminatory provisions in contracts to discourage trade union membership. I could understand it if the Government's aim was to ensure that people should not be pressurised not to join a union. However, why should not people be allowed to enter into contracts that they consider to be better than what they could negotiate by means of a collective agreement through a trade union?
Many companies and businesses in this country offer such good terms of employment that trade union representation has never been necessary. I am fortunate in having a Quaker mother and a Quaker background. Many companies of Quaker origin, such as Cadbury, have offered such good terms that their employees have not felt it necessary to seek trade union recognition, but have made other arrangements for representation. Do the amendments mean that such arrangements will now be otiose? The amendments seem to suggest that, where there is a work force of more than 21 people, some form of collective agreement will be necessary. If so, that will lead to considerable confusion.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said, what has been said in the other place and here will confuse many about the Government's policy objective. If the Government are simply trying to ensure that people should not be discriminated against because they want to be members of a trade union, that is fine. We would all understand that. But we do not understand the concept that individuals should not be free to negotiate better terms with their employer if they think that that is achievable. That seems to be a fundamental breach of an individual's opportunity freely to contract with his employer, and it is fundamentally against what the Government seem to have set out in their White Paper.

Mr. Collins: Conservative Members have already established that the amendments are a classic example of a typical new Labour fiasco. Initially, the Government said one thing in one place and another thing in another. They usually ensure that the places concerned are a couple of hundred miles apart. They will say one thing in a constituency by-election and an entirely different thing in London. In this instance, however, the Government have managed to say one thing at the other end of the Corridor and something entirely different at this end. Even for this Government, it is stretching the credulity of their audience a little to believe that what is said in the other place might not be compared in Hansard with what is said in this place.
The Government have been caught out in a technique which I suspect they imported from their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, of saying different things to different audiences, but I am afraid that, in this instance, they have been caught out, and we look for a little more consistency from them.
Another thing that I fear is becoming all too typical of the Government is that they find themselves in a drafting shambles, advancing arguments that clearly do not stand


up. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) pointed out that the Secretary of State's argument that the amendments are somehow defective simply does not stand up. That is not consistent with what the noble Lord McIntosh said in the other place, and it is not consistent with any straightforward reading of the amendments.
Once again, as we saw when we debated the previous group of amendments, I fear that the Government find themselves unable to accept perfectly valid and clear amendments because they seem to be determined to plough ahead regardless, no matter what the quality or source of the arguments put to them. That, again, we must regret.
Then we come to what is perhaps the Government's greatest characteristic, and that is that they break their pledges. It is not simply that there has been confusion and inconsistency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, what amounted to a pledge was given by a Minister in the other place—not a pledge given, in that famous phrase of a few years ago, on a wet weekend in Dudley, but a pledge given by a Minister of the Crown to one of the Chambers of this Parliament that certain amendments would be brought forward. That has not occurred. I regard that as very serious, albeit that it has become part of a characteristic pattern of this Administration.
Finally we come to a modus operandi employed by the Government which I suspect they will come to regret—kicking something into the long grass in the hope that it will never come rolling out again. The Government say that all will be dealt with in regulations, that there is nothing to worry about and that employer organisations, trade unions and so on can be entirely content that all circles will be squared, that everyone will be bought off and that everyone will be happy in the end. There is the belief that if one keeps postponing the provision of detail for a sufficient number of months, no problem will ultimately arise.
This is the point at which the whistle has been blown. The package has been passed around for a little while and the ticking time bomb is about to go off. The Minister has clearly not succeeded in kicking it into the long grass. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has rightly performed her duty in holding the Minister to account for the pledges made by his junior ministerial team.
There may be a subtext to all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton touched on one possible subtext, which relates to the buying off of trade union friends, and that is a point to which I may return later. But there may be another subtext, and that is that the Secretary of State may not much mind what his juniors say in another place because he knows that either they or he will move next week. In either event, he may not care too much about ministerial consistency because the present happy band of brothers and sisters at the Department of Trade and Industry may be about to be broken up and dispersed. The Government Whip on the Front Bench, who is a most distinguished and admirable member of that team, and—I hope that I do not damage his prospects—someone who thoroughly deserves promotion, may also find himself part of a different ministerial team. That may be why the Minister does not care whether he is being consistent or not.

I hope that such a short-term view has not entered the Secretary of State's calculations, but one must bear in mind that this particular piece of unhappy legislation has already borne the fingerprints of no fewer than three Secretaries of State in its transition from the initial White Paper, through the wonderful spinning regime of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who tried to pretend that it was something entirely different from what it was, to the present chair of decisions at the Department of Trade and Industry, who has found it in his in-tray and fiddled around with it.
We do know one thing from the press reports relating to the Government reshuffle, which may explain the Secretary of State's reaction. Whatever the fate of his junior Ministers in the other place, and whatever the fate of his Whip, it is widely expected that his junior Minister of State is likely to become the equivalent of party chairman. The party chairman must ensure that all the members of the Labour party, including the trade union funding partners, are happy. That is why the Government are resisting the amendment. I can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are following closely the way in which I am referring closely to the Government's resistance to the amendment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton rightly pointed out, the amendment provoked unhappiness in the other place, not from any old member of the Labour Benches, but from a senior person with connections to the trade union movement. It is distinctly possible that any chairman-elect of the Labour party—as we may refer to the Minister of State—would be concerned if the trade union movement, which is instrumental in keeping the Labour party going, funding it and providing key workers in key seats, was in any way displeased.
As we turn to the detail of the amendments, we should bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State has a range of reasons, not all of them entirely above board or noble, for resisting the text before us. That text is clear. The Secretary of State claimed earlier that it was an attempt to spatchcock two different concepts together and that the Bill was the wrong place for it. In fact, it defines, at least in part, the "detriment" identified in clause 15(1). It is an important clarificatory measure. We must be clear what is and is not "detriment".
I hear a nasty echo of some famous—indeed notorious—remarks made a few years ago by Roy Hattersley, then the Labour party's deputy leader. In The Guardian, he wrote that the Labour Party was not the party of equality of opportunity. That, he wrote, was the Tory party, while the Labour party was the party of equality of outcome. If that is the attitude of the Labour party, and one must assume that a former deputy leader knows something about his party's instincts, one can see why Labour Members do not like the amendment. It would permit someone who was not a member of a trade union to earn more than someone who was.
Labour wants a wonderful world—wonderful in Labour's terms, though not in anyone else's—in which everyone who works for a specific employer is paid exactly the same. No matter how hard they work, how successful they are, how many bonuses they earn or how much they contribute to the company, they will receive no more money. That chimes with the Secretary of State's recent attack on so-called fat cats, another indication of the Government's egalitarian instincts. They are opposed


to the idea of having different pay for different skills, aptitude or effort. Serious concern exists that they are seeking to impose a model on our industrial relations that clearly would not work.
Socialism in all its forms has failed, particularly the state socialism of eastern Europe. The incentive principle, which lies at the heart of the amendment, is the reason why socialism will never work. Socialism prescribes equality, even where it does not exist. We stand for equality of opportunity—the then Mr. Hattersley was entirely right about that. Sadly, Labour stands for equality of outcome, and that is a very different proposition.
The powerful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton has not been properly addressed by the Government. We want to know their answers to her points. In particular, why does the Secretary of State say something different in the House of Commons from what another Minister said in the House of Lords barely five weeks ago? I wait with bated breath for his reply.

Mr. Syms: I support what the noble Lords have done. Baroness Miller's remarks concluded:
By compelling an employee to accept a collective bargain against his will and in that way increase the power of the union over him, the Government are attempting to reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. I repeat that this would reintroduce the closed shop by the back door. That is something which the Labour Party promised it would not do. This amendment simply ensures that workers enjoy one of the most fundamental of employment rights; namely, to negotiate their own individual pay if they can strike a better bargain with their employer, possibly by being more flexible than an entrenched egalitarian position of a trade union."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 357.]
The key point is the meaning of "detriment". The Lords amendment broadens the definition, allowing people a much clearer idea of whether it means "difference". Workers have to be flexible today, and although the amendment does not undermine anyone's right to be a member of a trade union and accept the benefits that flow from membership, some workers, perhaps because of the hours they work or the skills they have, are in a good position to negotiate their own terms and conditions.
The amendment allows our economy to be flexible, and allows individual workers with particular skills to take the best advantage of that. My concern is with the meaning of "detriment", and whether it means difference or allows trade unions to level down rather than up. Will individuals with particular skills be able to bargain through the market to achieve the maximum benefits?

Mr. Byers: This has been an interesting debate; I shall try to reply to the points made by Opposition Members. For the benefit of the House, I point out that the Government voted against amendment No. 17 in the House of Lords—a good demonstration that we did not accept its content. That is why we opposed it, and gave the clearest possible expression of our reservations about it.
However, the reason for the views expressed by my noble Friends lies in the principle that we all share; it underpins the comments made by Baroness Miller and I restated it at the beginning of the debate. The principle is

simply that employers should remain free to offer more pay or to improve benefits to individual employees; even though there may be a collective agreement, employers will have that freedom. That is what I believe in, and it will be ensured by the regulations that we shall introduce in the House—which can be debated and voted on.
There is no disagreement about the principle that underpins our consideration of these matters. However, we do not accept the previous Conservative Government's view that individuals should be penalised because they choose to belong to a trade union, and to be part of a collective agreement. The previous Government endorsed and supported that view; the regulations that we shall introduce will allow individuals freedom of contract, but will ensure that people will not be penalised or suffer detriment because they belong to a trade union.

Mrs. Browning: If those were Secretary of State's concerns, why was the amendment not brought back to this place in a modified form on Report? Later, on Third Reading, the Government made a slight alteration on the grounds that the amendment needed a grammatical change. Why was it not substantively changed—as was promised by Lord McIntosh? We share the Secretary of State's concern about the rights of trade union members, but there was nothing to stop him from tabling on Report the substantive amendment that was promised in another place.

Mr. Byers: We are talking to interested parties about the detail of the regulations. I would rather do that in order to get the regulations right. Those regulations will be supported by business. People will realise that they carry the debate forward appropriately. I realise that Opposition Members find that hard to understand; they do not understand the concept of consultation—of discussing with business what might be suitable or appropriate. We believe in consultation and that, as a result of it, the regulations that we shall introduce will be all the better. [Interruption.] I know that it is difficult for Opposition Members to understand that, but that is what will happen.
We heard a great deal about what is meant by detriment. I knew it was a mistake to use the same approach as that adopted by the previous Government in their Employment Rights Act 1996. Detriment was referred to, but no precise definition was given. We have adopted exactly the same approach.
We are talking about introducing regulations that will do away with one of the great injustices promoted by the previous Government: that because people chose to belong to a trade union, their employer should be able to discriminate against them. We do not accept that approach. We believe that amendment No. 17, supported by the Conservatives in the House of Lords, will make it difficult to ensure that we can remove that discrimination. We believe that individuals should have the freedom to be paid more by their employer if the employer agrees, but that should not be based on penalising trade union members. We know that that is the Opposition's motive because, during their years in government, they did nothing to change matters; they did nothing to oppose discrimination against trade union members.
I invite the House to disagree with amendment No. 17 carried in the House of Lords. We believe in fairness, not favours; we believe that the Government are for all the


people, not just for a few. That is why we shall resist the amendment. We shall ensure that there will not be discrimination against trade union members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): I remind the House that we are dealing first with Lords amendment No. 16.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 8, line 20, at end insert—
("(4) The payment of higher wages or higher rates of pay or overtime or the payment of any signing on or other bonuses or the provision of other benefits having a monetary value to other workers employed by the same employer shall not constitute a detriment to any worker not receiving the same or similar payments or benefits within the meaning of subsection (l)(a) of this section so long as—

(a) there is no inhibition in the contract of employment of the worker receiving the same from being the member of any trade union, and
(b) the said payments of higher wages or rates of pay or overtime or bonuses or the provision of other benefits are in accordance with the terms of a contract of employment and reasonably relate to services provided by the worker under that contract,

and paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 to this Act and sections 146 and 148(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 shall be construed accordingly.")

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Byers.]

The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 109.

Division No. 268]
[8.49 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Ainger, Nick
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Alexander, Douglas
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Allan, Richard
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Allen, Graham
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Banks, Tony
Casale, Roger


Barron, Kevin
Caton, Martin


Battle, John
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Bayley, Hugh
Chaytor, David


Beard, Nigel
Chidgey, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Chisholm, Malcolm


Begg, Miss Anne
Clapham, Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)



Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Berry, Roger
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Best, Harold
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Blackman, Liz
Clelland, David


Borrow, David
Clwyd, Ann


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cohen, Harry


Bradshaw, Ben
Colman, Tony


Brand, Dr Peter
Connarty, Michael


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Browne, Desmond
Cousins, Jim


Buck, Ms Karen
Cox, Tom


Burden, Richard
Cranston, Ross


Burgon, Colin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Burnett, John
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Burstow, Paul
Cummings, John





Cunliffe, Lawrence
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jenkins, Brian


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dalyell, Tam



Darvill, Keith
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wdverh'ton SW)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)



Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally


Drew, David
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keetch, Paul


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Etherington, Bill
Khabra, Piara S


Fearn, Ronnie
Kilfoyle, Peter


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Laxton, Bob


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lepper, David


Flint, Caroline
Leslie, Christopher


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Linton, Martin


Foulkes, George
Lock, David


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


Gardiner, Barry
McCabe, Steve


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gerrard, Neil
Macdonald, Calum


Gibson, Dr Ian
McDonnell, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McIsaac, Shona


Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Golding, Mrs Llin
McNamara, Kevin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McNulty, Tony


Gorrie, Donald
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McWilliam, John


Grocott, Bruce
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Gunnell, John
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hancock, Mike
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Meale, Alan


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Heppell, John
Mitchell, Austin


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moffatt, Laura


Hinchliffe, David
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoey, Kate
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hood, Jimmy
Morley, Elliot


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mudie, George


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mullin, Chris


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hurst, Alan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hutton, John
Olner, Bill






Organ, Mrs Diana
Spellar, John


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Steinberg, Gerry


Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Pickthall, Colin
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pike, Peter L
Stoate, Dr Howard


Plaskitt, James
Stott Roger


Pope, Greg
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Pound, Stephen
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Powell, Sir Raymond
Stringer, Graham


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Primarolo, Dawn



Prosser, Gwyn
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Temple-Morris, Peter


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Rammell, Bill
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rapson, Syd
Timms, Stephen


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Touhig, Don


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Trickett, Jon


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Rooney, Terry
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Roy, Frank
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Ruddock, Joan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walley, Ms Joan


Ryan, Ms Joan
Ward, Ms Claire


Salter, Martin
Wareing, Robert N


Sanders, Adrian
Watts, David


Sarwar, Mohammad
White, Brian


Savidge, Malcolm
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Sawford, Phil
Wicks, Malcolm


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Shipley, Ms Debra
Willis, Phil


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Winnick, David


Singh, Marsha
Wise, Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wray, James



Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)



Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Clive Betts and


Soley, Clive
Mr. Keith Hill.


NOES


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bercow, John
Evans, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Blunt, Crispin
Fabricant, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Fallon, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Dr Liam


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fraser, Christopher


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gibb, Nick


Burns, Simon
Gill, Christopher


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl



Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chope, Christopher
Gray, James


Clappison, James
Green, Damian


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Greenway, John



Grieve, Dominic


Collins, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Hawkins, Nick


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David





Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Horam, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Richard


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Jenkin, Bernard
Spring, Richard


Key, Robert
Swayne, Desmond


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Syms, Robert


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Letwin, Oliver
Townend, John


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tredinnick, David


Lidington, David
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Loughton, Tim
Walter, Robert


Luff, Peter
Wardle, Charles


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Wells, Bowen


McLoughlin, Patrick
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Whittingdale, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Moss, Malcolm
Wilkinson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Willetts, David


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Page, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Paice, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pickles, Eric



Prior, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, John
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown


Redwood, Rt Hon John
and


Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 18 and 19 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 20, after clause 19, to insert the following new clause—National minimum wage: communities—
. The following shall be inserted after section 44 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (exclusions: voluntary workers)—
"Religious and other communities: resident workers.
44A.—(1) A residential member of a community to which this section applies does not qualify for the national minimum wage in respect of employment by the community.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section applies to a community if—

(a) it is a charity or is established by a charity,
(b) a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature, and
(c) all or some of its members live together for that purpose.
(3) This section does not apply to a community which—

(a) is an independent school, or
(b) provides a course of further or higher education.
(4) The residential members of a community are those who live together as mentioned in subsection (2)(c).


(5) In this section—

(a) "charity" has the same meaning as in section 44, and
(b) "independent school" has the same meaning as in section 463 of the Education Act 1996 (in England and Wales), section 135 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (in Scotland) and Article 2 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 (in Northern Ireland).
(6) In this section "course of further or higher education" means—

(a) in England and Wales, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 6 to the Education Reform Act 1988 or Schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act 1992;
(b) in Scotland, a course or programme of a description mentioned in or falling within section 6(1) or 38 of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992;
(c) in Northern Ireland, a course of a description referred to in Schedule 1 to the Further Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 or a course providing further education within the meaning of Article 3 of that Order." "

Mr. Byers: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 25.

Mr. Byers: I hope that the House will support the amendments, which reflect marked common sense on the part of the Government in dealing with these important matters. Amendment No. 20 deals with what are known as intentional communities, which are communities in which people effectively volunteer. They are often religious-based and have shared living accommodation. The people concerned have a common religious or spiritual aim. They are in a unique position.
We received a number of representations from such groups when they saw the details of our provisions in relation to the national minimum wage. We have used the opportunity to consider those representations, and as a result have come to the conclusion, with which I hope this House will agree, that we should exclude intentional communities from the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998.
The communities, religious orders and individuals concerned have welcomed the measure. They recognise that the commitment and devotion that goes with such a life style was not intended to be affected by the National Minimum Wage Act. Only about 1,000 people are affected and, in the circumstances, we think that the provision is wholly appropriate.
Lords amendment No. 25 would allow information to be given to Inland Revenue enforcement officers to ensure effective enforcement of the National Minimum Wage Act, but in a way that does not create an undue burden on business. I hope that that will commend it to Opposition Members.

Mr. John Healey: My right hon. Friend will be aware that one of the successful aspects of the implementation of the minimum wage is the use of the hotline by employers to report other employers who may be paying below the minimum wage. Understandably, and rightly, they are keen not to be undercut by cowboys who

misuse the law. Will he confirm whether the new clause that Lords amendment No. 25 would introduce would allow Inland Revenue officers who are alerted to such malpractice by an employer to pass on that information to enforcement officers, reinforcing the application and implementation of the minimum wage?

Mr. Byers: The areas covered by Lords amendment No. 25 would allow the Inland Revenue to pass to enforcement officers information that it received during the course of discharging its responsibilities. So, provided that they were the circumstances in which the information was received, it would be passed on. I should explain the practicalities of the operation of the present system. We would expect that the sort of information that we are receiving from employers through the hotline would go to the dedicated enforcement team and not to the normal Inland Revenue personnel. Therefore, the situation that my hon. Friend described is unlikely to arise.
It is worth noting that there have been something like 1,900 references to the telephone hotline because of people who, allegedly, were not paying the national minimum wage, and we have been able to deal with many of them. The number of employers who have been ringing up to inform the enforcement authorities about other employers who are not paying the national minimum wage has surprised many of us. As we said when we took the Bill through the House, there is much resentment among employers who are paying a reasonable wage when they know that they are being undercut by the actions of other employers.
Lords amendment No. 25 is sensible, it would cut bureaucracy for business and would be provide a very effective way of enforcing the national minimum wage legislation. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.

Mrs. Browning: I do not oppose Lords amendment No. 20 in principle. However, I have recognised an anomaly in its wording, which could lead to the proposed clause affecting a group of people which the Secretary of State had not intended to affect. I shall talk him through such a situation in order to gain his reassurance that such an organisational group of people should not, for reasons that I shall explain, come within the scope of the clause.
Paragraph 2(b) of Lords amendment No. 20 says:
a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
It is the words "similar nature" that worry me. The community is either of a religious background or it is not. If it is not, but the wording "similar nature" is to apply in law—bearing in mind the fact that the other condition in the subsection requires the organisation to be an established charity or established by a charity—there is a group of people who might meet the definition in the clause who would give me cause for concern.
Some environmental charities fund groups of people, sometimes over quite a sustained period, so that the group may become a formalised protest group in a specific location. A group of road protesters might be funded by a charitable organisation, so they would meet the definition in paragraph 2(a) of the new clause, and might be regarded as being of a "religious or similar nature" under paragraph 2(b). They would not necessarily be drawing benefits, but their day-to-day living expenses would be funded by the charity.
I can think of a situation that occurred in my constituency, where such a group of people—

Mr. Battle: Swampy.

Mrs. Browning: I did indeed have the great pleasure of Swampy on my roof when some people set up their community—or a group of a "similar nature"—near my home some years ago.
The general public often think—sometimes rightly—that such groupings of people are simply drawing benefit. That is not always the case. Some do, but not all. Those who do not sustain their day-to-day living expenses by benefit are obviously being funded, sometimes by bona fide charity moneys that reach them. None the less they would, in effect, be being paid for their living expenses, and could well be below the minimum wage.
I do not want to give the Secretary of State false hope tonight because I do not want him to think that I am making a case for the minimum wage. I am not. I am simply suggesting to him a scenario in which a group of people might well come within the terms of the new clause simply because of the way that it is worded. The charitable condition would be met, and who is to distinguish between different groups of people who opt to live together in a community? If the full stop is not to be placed after the words
practise or advance a belief of a religious nature",
the words "similar nature" could be interpreted as applying to people who share a common belief, regardless of whether that is of a religious nature.
I am trying to help the Secretary of State here. I caution him to look very carefully at how the wording of paragraph (2)(b) might be interpreted in law, and might give sustenance to a group of people of whom he may or may not approve—I do not know—who could pray in aid this part of his legislation to use it for a purpose other than that for which it was intended. I should have thought that clarification of "or similar nature" and the difference between a belief of a religious nature and a belief of a similar nature turns on the head of a pin, but I should be very interested to know how the Secretary of State and his officials interpret those words.

Mr. Peter Luff: I am genuinely intrigued to know the reasons that have driven the Government to allow this exemption from what is, for them, a very important piece of legislation. The Secretary of State said that only about 1,000 people would be affected by the provision; it would very much help the House to know exactly what type of people they are. I have suggested to the Government several times that other exemptions should be made from the national minimum wage legislation. It would be intriguing to know—and it is very important that the House should know before it passes this exemption—what has driven the Secretary of State to accept the logic for this group.
In the past, I have advanced a proposition entirely commensurate with the spirit that underlies what I think is a commendable amendment. It is that quasi volunteers who involve themselves in pre-school playgroups think that they should be exempted from minimum wage legislation. These are people who share a common belief

about the value of education. They do not live together but they are often people who do not want the money that comes from their work. They have the reward of enjoying the fulfilment that comes from helping young people to develop their skills. Yet the Government have robustly rejected the view that these quasi volunteers should be excluded from the minimum wage legislation.
9.15 pm
I have a high regard for religious communities. In the past, I have been on retreat on many occasions to religious communities, mainly in France. I do not recall having done so in this country. That being so, I do not want to undermine the importance of the exemption. I want to know why the Government have been moved to accept the amendment, which excludes religious communities from minimum wage legislation when there are so many other groups that could argue with equal legitimacy that the cause they espouse and the views and beliefs that they hold about the value of education—for example, pre-school playgroups—are as valid as the religious beliefs held by communities.
The first question that the Secretary of State must answer is why a particular group has been singled out for what seems to be a reasonable exclusion. I would like to know also from the Secretary of State exactly what type of person is affected. He talked of about 1,000 people. These are presumably not the nuns and monks of religious communities and their opposite numbers. They are the—[Interruption.] The Minister said something from a sedentary position and I could not hear what he said. If he genuinely wants to intervene, I shall find it helpful to have clarification.
I am wondering about gardeners, cooks and groundsmen at communities, for example. If they are included, that is fine. Who is the employee? I do not know how the law operates in this respect. We are not dealing with limited liability companies, particularly when talking about religious communities. Apparently, communities will have to have charitable status. Employment by the community is clearly important.
I would be interested to know whether the Secretary of State has received any representations from communities that think that they should be caught by the exemption but that do not qualify for charitable status.
I am particularly worried about clause 2(b), which states:
a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
I take up what my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said from the Opposition Front Bench about environmental groups. If the amendment were genuinely providing an exemption for religious communities, "the principal purpose" and not "a purpose" should be in the Bill. I share all the reservations that have already been expressed about "or similar nature", which flows after religious beliefs. This opens a Pandora's box for not only legitimate religious groups from the Roman Catholic and the Anglican monastic traditions, which I assume will be the principal beneficiaries of the exemption, but for all sorts of dubious religious cults, whose practices I do not think we would want to condone. Often such cults have a community for the practising or the advancing of
a belief of a religious or similar nature".


The phrase "or similar nature" takes a particular salience because the rather dubious religious cults, on which I am sure the Government have a wary eye, as did the previous Conservative Government, often have much more money than the Anglican and Roman Catholic communities and other religious communities that are entirely properly being exempted under the Bill.
It would seem that cults may be capable of abusing the spirit of the national minimum wage legislation. They have much more resources at their disposal than the Anglican and Roman Catholic communities and many more employees. I am concerned that the amendment may be opening the door not to 1,000 exemptions but many more from the national minimum wage legislation.

Mr. Collins: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying about the potential danger of including cults. Is not that danger reinforced by the fact that many cults try to tell those who fall within their embrace that they are entering a completely different world from the outside world and that they must cut off all contact with it? Exemption from important statutory provisions will only reinforce that sense of being apart from the rest of the world.

Mr. Luff: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I appreciate that, by definition, volunteers cannot be caught by national minimum wage legislation—at least, I hope they cannot—but those who are at the penumbra of such cults, who are employed in some sense by that bigger community, may indeed fall victim to the situation that my hon. Friend describes.
We need to know much more from the Secretary of State about those 1,000 people who he says will be exempted by the measure, welcome though it is in principle.
Subsection (2)(c) states that
all or some of its members live together for that purpose.
That is exceptionally loose drafting. What, in law, does "some" constitute? Is it a half, a quarter, a third, a fifth, two or three? How many does "some" constitute for this purpose? There is huge scope for creative abuse of the exemption.
I say again that I am not a huge fan of the national minimum wage legislation. Good employers should pay a decent wage, and I condemn those who do not. The Government have no business meddling. I oppose such legislation, and I resent being told when I oppose it that I am not part of the new one-nation strain of new Labourism. However, if we are to have legislation, it must be good legislation. It must not be open to abuse.
There is nothing hypocritical in the Opposition saying that we oppose legislation, but, if it is to be introduced, it must work. I worry that the loose definitions that feature in amendment No. 20 could open the Government's legislation to considerable abuse.
I imagine that the exemption in subsection (3)(a)—
This section does not apply to a community which—
(a) is an independent school"—
is intended to exempt communities such as Ampleforth. Clearly, where there is large-scale employment of teachers, it is reasonable for the Government to make such an exemption, but I would welcome clarification of that.
I go back to my opening remarks. If we are exempting independent schools, I want to know why we are not exempting other categories, particularly the pre-school

play groups, which have a common belief and value education. The people who work for them do so not primarily for the money, but for the joy of bringing up children. If the Government are prepared to make an exemption for religious communities—which may be right, subject to the caveats that I have entered—why are they not prepared to consider exemptions for other communities which may not be residential, but have a shared belief and are essentially voluntary in nature?

Mr. Chidgey: I return to the Secretary of State's opening remarks, which seem to have been made quite a long while ago. He mentioned that he had listened carefully to the arguments advanced by a number of groups. He is right. In Committee, there was a great deal of discussion and debate about the exemptions for particular groups which, because of their religious principles, could not continue to organise themselves and the way in which they worked if the law was passed and affected them.
Much of that discussion took place during the debate on employment relations and trade union recognition. Can the Minister tell me—I may have missed it in my reading of the Lords amendments—what has happened to the plea from those groups that they should be exempted from trade union recognition? As I recall, that was one of their principal problems. With their fundamental belief in the Old Testament, which they quoted to many of us, they could not operate their workshops if they had to allow trade union recognition ballots to take place. They could not do that and hold true to their beliefs.
If I recall correctly, the Minister of State said at the time that there would be further discussion and clarification, and that regulations would be produced in due course to address the issue.
I am a little surprised to see a Lords amendment dealing with the national minimum wage, but no mention of the problem of trade union recognition. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State could advise me of the progress that has been made in the negotiations and when we can expect regulations or legislation to satisfy the genuine concerns of those groups.

Mr. Robert Syms: I shall echo a few of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who made a persuasive case. Conservative Members do not support the minimum wage, but we support good employment practices and, because other groups are not being exempted, we believe that exempting particular groups in such a way is fiddling. I believe that most of us have concerns about that matter. In the summer, I visited a pre-school playgroup in Newtown in my constituency that had made two helpers redundant. The employers felt very sad about doing that because, although those helpers were not paid a great deal, they did not qualify for the minimum wage. Why should people who work in pre-school playgroups be considered to be less worthy than members of some of those other groups? I am not sure.
The Secretary of State said that the amendment will affect 1,000 people, but I think that we need to hear a little more about how the Government arrived at that figure and who those people are. The drafting is a little wide and proposed subsection (2)(a) refers to a community that
is a charity or is established by a charity".


I am not worried about the charity aspect, because the Charity Commissioners apply pretty stringent standards, but the term "established by a charity" is rather unclear and I have concerns about it. Proposed subsection (2)(b) states:
a purpose of the community is to practise or advance a belief of a religious or similar nature".
There is a problem with the term "a purpose". If the term "the purpose" had been used, the drafting would have been better and the provision would have been rather more specific. I am also concerned about the term "similar nature", which is ill defined. Religion covers a pretty broad area, but most of us would agree about what is and is not a religion. The term "similar nature" is rather more nebulous, however, and I am not sure that we would all agree about what it means.
We in Poole have had experience of cults. Some of them profess to be religions and to have particular spiritual values, but I am not sure that most of my constituents would want them to be treated in the same way as reputable religious orders, particularly because some cults have bad reputations in communities such as Poole. Proposed subsection (2)(c) refers to
all or some of its members
living "together for that purpose." Again, the drafting has been widely drawn and the measure should be rather more specific. Does that term mean a household or a very small proportion of the membership of a particular organisation? We need a little more specific information from those on the Treasury Bench about whom the measure will help.
We are discussing religious communities and we know that people have deeply held beliefs. One would welcome the measure in principle, but it has been widely drafted and one is concerned that, although its objective is worthy, organisations that are not worthy of that objective will make use of it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, why should some groups be able to use the "similar aspects" provision in order to be considered more worthy than pre-school playgroups or other bodies that contribute to communities in my constituency and in many others? Those bodies do a very good job, but, although they do a great deal for young children, they are not exempt from the legislation. They will suffer under it and I want clarification from Ministers.

Mr. Robert Key: I have been wondering whether I should declare any interests before contributing to the debate and I think that I should declare two, neither of which is pecuniary: the first is that I am the Member of Parliament for Stonehenge; the second is that I am an adviser to the Almshouse Association.
Thousands of people in this country live in almshouses of ancient foundations. Many of those foundations are religious—notably Christian—and such people live in communities to which a number of special exemptions apply—in respect of television licences for particular categories of people, for example. That is a bona fide reason why the association should benefit from certain legislative proposals that come before the House from time to time.
Nevertheless, I have great trouble when discussing things "of a … similar nature" to almshouses. It is astonishing that the House should be asked even to

consider that wording without a proper explanation of what is meant. I am seriously wondering whether to support the amendment.
9.30 pm
The Almshouse Association represents more than 1,000 almshouses, which have been established down the years. It cares for thousands of people, thus saving the taxpayer and the state enormous cost. We should be grateful for that. In recent years, there have been a number of cases in which the almshouses have not been sure whether they should be regarded as religious or non-religious, communities or not communities. This wording would allow another confusion to creep in. The almshouses employ carers, cleaners and cooks. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is particularly knowledgeable about this subject and would have wished to take part in this debate if only I had managed to contact him in time. Were he here, he would agree with every word that I have said.
When it comes to these exemptions, the question whether a community advances
a belief of a religious or similar nature
is extremely important. Therefore, the Almshouse Association has a legitimate interest in knowing exactly what is meant by that wording. I doubt whether it could tell from the provision before us.

Mrs. Browning: Is not this problem caused by the fact that a flaw in the drafting of the Government's minimum wage legislation calls into question a range of payments that we would normally have regarded as honorariums? People for whom some reward is given, but for whom no exceptional circumstances are provided, suddenly fall foul of the legislation.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is right, and countless examples could back up her case. That is just part of my concern about the amendment.
I shall now deal with Stonehenge. Some may feel that this is not a serious issue; I assure them, that for my constituents, it is extremely serious. We have seen what happened there recently. A large number of people, who regard themselves as a community and who practise a belief of a religious nature, were denied access to the summer solstice at the stones by others who thought that they had what might be called "a similar nature" approach to the problem. There was a battle in which, unfortunately, the police had to hold both groups apart and maintain public order in the process.
Although we may not think that the druids have a serious religion, they think so, and we live in a tolerant society that should acknowledge that they have the right to that belief. Only yesterday, I was with the arch druid of Stonehenge, with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the chairman of English Heritage, discussing the future of Stonehenge and the appropriateness of the Stonehenge landscape for events to celebrate the millennium.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman care to address his remarks to the national minimum wage?

Mr. Key: The national minimum wage is of fundamental importance to the issue because, at the height


of the troubles at Stonehenge 15 years ago, there was a great deal of employment, which was based on the occupation of land owned by the National Trust or managed by English Heritage on behalf of the Government and the nation. There is concern that, at the millennium solstice, as you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, next time you push the right buttons on your personal computer, the biggest rave ever is to take place at Stonehenge. Tens of thousands of people across the country may want to come to Stonehenge. The last time that happened, hundreds of people were involved in trading at Stonehenge, in association with a number of cults that thought they were religions. They were concerned that there should be a proper market price for their products. I saw what was on sale. The hell's angels were in control of the sale of alcohol.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am having great difficulty understanding how the hon. Member's remarks relate to the amendment. He should make his remarks specifically about the amendment.

Mr. Key: I shall do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In those days, there was no national minimum wage, but now there is. Will the people gathering at Stonehenge for the millennium or on the ninth day of the ninth month of the 99th year, for the winter solstice or the spring equinox, let alone for next year's summer solstice, be subject to the minimum wage when they trade in alcohol or food on the site at Stonehenge? This is of great importance.
The amendment is unclear. What does it mean by
of a religious or similar nature"?
Not only do the druids think that they are a religion, but so do other people who regularly descend on my constituents, such as the hell's angels, Swampy and friends or whoever. If they are law-abiding members of the community, that is fine by us. However, we have enough trouble with the Wiltshire constabulary having to enforce the laws on public order. What is the chief constable of Wiltshire to do when it comes to enforcing the national minimum wage at the stones?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not able to address the amendment more directly, he should consider drawing his remarks to a close.

Mr. Key: I should be delighted to draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I question the purpose of the amendment. I ask Ministers seriously to address this issue. My predecessor, Sir Michael Hamilton, regularly stood up in the House and was gently chided, perhaps mocked, for drawing attention to the problems each year at Stonehenge, which always made the national headlines during the summer solstice. Eventually, someone saw what was going on down there—people were being killed and murdered—and the House came to its senses and passed the required legislation.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your forbearance in hearing me out. The amendment will do no good for real people in real communities. We may think that we are legislating for completely rational, legally minded people, but lawyers and courts will have to interpret the legislation, and the police will have to

decide how to enforce it on the ground in the height of summer, among serried ranks of people with conflicting religious beliefs. That is not fair. We must get answers to the questions that I have raised.

Mr. Collins: I shall be brief, but I should like to make some important points. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) in welcoming the fact that the Government have introduced the proposals for exemptions. However, it is not that long since the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 was passed. At the time of its passage, Conservative Members warned the then Secretary of State that the Government would need a general power to exempt some categories of persons and activities from the national minimum wage. That idea was pooh-poohed by Labour Members. This is the second time in barely a year that the Government have had the chance to introduce special legislation to exempt categories of people from the national minimum wage. First it was au pairs, and now it is workers in residence in religious communities.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) asked about religious communities, and the position of those who have sought exemption from the requirement for trade union recognition. The hon. Gentleman and I served on the Standing Committee that considered the relevant parts of the Bill, which related in particular to those who describe themselves as members of the Plymouth Brethren. I suspect that the Secretary of State will say that they would not fall into the categories specified by the amendment, because most of those who work for the Plymouth Brethren are not residential members of the community. Nevertheless, I feel that the hon. Member for Eastleigh has identified an important issue of principle.

Mr. Chidgey: The amendment says that "some" can be residents. Does that not cover such people?

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I really want to deal with what I consider to be the heart of the point that he was making. We are dealing with an issue of principle. In Committee, the Minister of State was quite generous, expressing a strong commitment to people's right to follow their religious beliefs. However, he said that it was wrong for those religious beliefs to remove the rights of employees. It was on that basis that the Government rejected the amendments relating to the Plymouth Brethren, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson).
If that principle applies across the board—not least in other parts of the Bill—surely it ought to apply in this case. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Government recognise that there are religious grounds on which exemptions should be made—and I welcome any such recognition—why, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh has said, should that not apply to trade union recognition? If the Government now believe that religious considerations provide legitimate grounds for the changing of employment rights, why does that not apply throughout the Bill?
The Government may say that the issue involves not just religious issues, but the residential members of the community who are mentioned in new section 44A(1). The residential principle is at heart here. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire said


about certain groups—including, perhaps, the Pre-School Learning Alliance—but I think particularly of people in my constituency. I think of the secretary of the national training centre of the YMCA at Lakeside in my constituency, on the shores of Lake Windermere, who wants residential training courses there to be exempted from the national minimum wage provisions. I also think of Mr. Michael Berry, proprietor and managing director of the excellent English Lakes hotel chain in my constituency, who says that the provisions do not take enough account of the fact that most employees in the tourist industry are provided with residential accommodation. That ought to be considered in the assessment of their eligibility for the national minimum wage, and the amount that they receive.
I want the Secretary of State to explain the principles that apply. If there are to be religious exemptions, why do they not apply elsewhere? If there are to be residential exemptions, why do they not apply elsewhere? If the Government are simply acting in response to popular pressure, will the Secretary of State please listen to some of the points made by the Pre-School Learning Alliance, and by others who feel that the Government's actions, although doubtless embarked on with the best of motives, will have damaging consequences?

Mr. Byers: Although a number of the points that have been made touched on the amendment, a much larger number did not. I shall confine my remarks to those that are relevant to it.
I know that the question of the Plymouth Brethren concerns hon. Members. We have engaged in continuing discussions with the Brethren about their circumstances. My noble Friend Lord Simon met members of the organisation last week, and they are now writing to him about their concerns. We will continue that dialogue, but it will not dilute the general principle that we have pursued. We believe that individuals should have a right to trade union membership if they feel that it is appropriate, and that there should be a right to trade union recognition and representation when that is appropriate. Nevertheless, there may be opportunities for us to meet the legitimate concerns of the Brethren, and we are discussing with them how that might be achieved.
9.45 pm
For the benefit of hon. Members, I make the position clear. The minimum wage does not apply to volunteers, to nuns or to monks; they are exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. When the issue was debated in both Houses in the context of the national minimum wage, most people felt that intentional communities would not be considered as workers within the definition of the Act. What people were unaware of at the time was that individuals in intentional communities are often given employment contracts as best practice. Although, in the classic definition, they are not employees, they are given contracts of employment because that is regarded as best practice, so they fall within the definition of the Act.
Lords amendment No. 20 focuses particularly on those with a religious ethos who are resident. To qualify for exemption, the community must be a charity, or founded by a charity and—as hon. Members have said—all or some of the members must reside together for the purpose

of practising or advancing a belief of "a religious or similar nature". I will talk about "religious or similar nature" because it has been dwelt on by several Members.
Examples of the type of communities that will be covered by amendment No. 20 are the Iona Community, the Society of Mary and Martha, the Community for Reconciliation and the Quiet Waters Christian retreat house. The amendment has been drawn up in consultation with those bodies. There is, effectively, a network of intentional communities in the United Kingdom. We were conscious that it was an identifiable group. We took the view that it could be exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act.
I reassure hon. Members: the protesters whom we have heard about would not come within the definition. The reason is that, when a court considers the interpretation of "religious or similar nature", it will apply a rule of statutory interpretation which is known as the ejusdem generis rule, which means that the general comment about "similar" will be restricted to the specific, which is religious. I am sure that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) was aware of that rule of statutory interpretation. Therefore, the reference to "similar nature" will be constrained by the use of the word "religious". In the context of those assurances, I hope that we can make progress.
A number of issues have been raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) had concerns about the wording:
all or some of its members live together".
In that context, "some" means more than one. Although we talk about all living together, there will be circumstances in which 50 people may be engaged, but only 35 are living together, so that definition of "some" has been used. In that context, those 35 will be the ones who come within the provisions of the exemption to which I have referred and which is being dealt with by amendment No. 20.
I enjoyed what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) said. I have visited many of the places that he mentioned on many weekends. I thought of the shores of Lake Windermere with great affection. It is a wonderful place to go on holiday. I commend it to many Members; it is something that I am sure we could all enjoy.

Mr. Battle: We could form an intentional community.

Mr. Byers: I am not sure that we would be able to form an intentional community within the context of the amendment, but the opportunity and the chance of doing so may be interesting.
The specific point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was in relation to living-in costs. They often arise in the hospitality and hotel industry, where people work as chamber maids or porters, but have their accommodation provided. The National Minimum Wage Act considered that aspect and agreed an effective disregard; I think that it was for living-in costs of £19.50. However, it is capped at that level. Concerns have been expressed that that is artificially low for people in the hotel and catering industry, and for people in London, where £19.50 is considered to be a relatively small amount.
One of the reasons for the Government's retention of the Low Pay Commission was so that it could examine the detail of issues such as that. As part of its on-going work, the commission is looking at the costs of living-in accommodation, to see whether the amount is pitched at the correct level.
The commission intends to report to me just before December on a range of matters, and I am sure that the question of living-in accommodation will be one of the issues to which it will return. Indeed, it has already made it clear that it is taking evidence on the matter. A number of groups have made strong representations about the matter, and I am sure that it will feature in the Low Pay Commission's report.
I said that a number of groups, such as volunteers, nuns and monks, are exempt. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) was worried about protesters benefiting from the provision. I hope that I have been able to explain that they would not be covered by the details of the amendment. All that would happen is that they would not receive the benefits of the national minimum wage. I am not sure that Swampy could have been regarded as an employee when he was on the hon. Lady's roof. I doubt that he would have qualified for the national minimum wage, and I do not think that the hon. Lady was keen for him to be entitled to it.

Mrs. Browning: Certainly not.

Mr. Byers: I followed with interest the hon. Lady's argument, but I could not identify the problem that she was trying to tackle in her example. I do not believe that protesters are covered by the provisions of the amendment. If they were, however, the amendment would mean simply that Swampy and his friends would not be entitled to the national minimum wage.

Mrs. Browning: My concern was that not all protesters who are unemployed claim benefit, but instead receive some remuneration, sometimes from charitable donations. Under the amendment, they could be regarded as a community with a common cause and, because the amendment is so loosely worded, such a community need not be religious.

Mr. Byers: I understand that concern, but I do not think that it need trouble the hon. Lady. The important thing to remember is that such people have to be residents of intentional communities, sharing living accommodation and tasks with the purpose of advancing a common religious or spiritual aim.

Mr. Alan Duncan: The Secretary of State is talking about us.

Mr. Byers: I am very tempted to go down that road, but I shall resist doing so, because the hon. Gentleman was referring to a very selective sect.
The basic requirement for classification as an intentional community is that the community provides meals and accommodation. Residential members of such communities often also receive small sums. Some communities treat their residential members as workers, issuing them with contracts of employment.
That is the key difference from the example given by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. As part of best practice, intentional communities consider it appropriate to issue members with contracts of employment, even though there is no legal obligation to do so.
The hon. Member for Salisbury spoke about Stonehenge so eloquently that I am sure that many hon. Members will want to visit. I was trying to recall whether the monument could be regarded as residential accommodation.

Mr. Key: indicated assent.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows the area far better than I do.

Mr. Peter Brooke: In the light of the Secretary of State's residential observation, is he aware of the Frank Muir spoof, which one used to be able to listen to on British Airways flights to the United States? Frank Muir was conducting an interview between the editor of The Architectural Review and a cave man about the architectural development of the henge, in which the cave man said that he did not think that henges would catch on because they were much too draughty.

Mr. Byers: That may explain a lot about our history. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to give an example from "The Goon Show"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the Secretary of State could return to the amendment.

Mr. Byers: I was thinking of the episode involving the Spitfire test pilot where there was banging on the cockpit. I had better not go any further.
I wanted to address the serious points about Stonehenge and residential accommodation, and I know that the House is waiting for my response on behalf of the Government on the important point concerning the druids. Before I come to that, I note that the hon. Member for Salisbury asked about almshouses and their staff. Staff, such as cooks and cleaners, who work in almshouses are working for the Almshouse Association and, as such, are not required to share a common religious belief or to live together in shared accommodation. Therefore, they would not be covered by amendment No. 20 which has been agreed by the other place, so they would not be exempt from the National Minimum Wage Act.
Druids, as I understand it, are not a registered charity. Therefore, for the reasons that have been referred to, they do not come within the definition to which amendment No. 20 relates. If they did become a charity and moved into shared accommodation for the purpose of advancing the druid movement, they might be exempt from the national minimum wage, but—this is the important point—anyone who worked for them would be entitled to receive the national minimum wage and would not be covered by amendment No. 20.
Both amendments are significant. We have discussed amendment No. 20 at some length and I hope that I have answered the concerns of all hon. Members. Amendment No. 25 is particularly important because it is an effective way of enforcing the national minimum wage legislation. For those reasons, I invite the House to agree to amendment No. 20.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 0.

Division No. 269]
[9.58 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cox, Tom


Ainger, Nick
Cranston, Ross


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Alexander, Douglas
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Allan, Richard
Cummings, John


Allen, Graham
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Ashton, Joe
Dalyell, Tam


Atkins, Charlotte
Darvill, Keith


Banks, Tony
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Beard, Nigel
Dawson, Hilton


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dean, Mrs Janet


Begg, Miss Anne
Denham, John


Beggs, Roy
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Donohoe, Brian H


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Doran, Frank


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dowd, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Drew, David


Berry, Roger
Drown, Ms Julia


Best, Harold
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Etherington, Bill


Bradshaw, Ben
Fearn, Ronnie


Brand, Dr Peter
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Browne, Desmond
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Buck, Ms Karen
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burgon, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Burnett, John
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Galloway, George


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gardiner, Barry


Campbell-Savours, Dale
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cann, Jamie
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caplin, Ivor
Gerrard, Neil


Casale, Roger
Gibson, Dr Ian


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Chidgey, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clapham, Michael
Gorrie, Donald


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Gunnell, John


Clelland, David
Hain, Peter


Clwyd, Ann
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cohen, Harry
Hancock, Mike


Colman, Tony
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Connarty, Michael
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Healey, John


Cotter, Brian
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Heppell, John





Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hoey, Kate
Morley, Elliot


Hood, Jimmy
Mudie, George


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mullin, Chris


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Howells, Dr Kim
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Humble, Mrs Joan
O'Hara, Eddie


Hurst, Alan
Olner, Bill


Hutton, John
Öpik, Lembit


Iddon, Dr Brian
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jenkins, Brian
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Prosser, Gwyn


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rapson, Syd


Keetch, Paul
Raynsford, Nick


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kemp, Fraser
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)



Khabra, Piara S
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kidney, David
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ruddock, Joan


Laxton, Bob
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Levitt, Tom
Sanders, Adrian


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sarwar, Mohammad


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary



McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meale, Alan
Stoate, Dr Howard


Merron, Gillian
Stott Roger


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stuart, Ms Gisela






Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wareing, Robert N


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Watts, David



White, Brian


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wicks, Malcolm


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)



Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Timms, Stephen
Willis, Phil


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Touhig, Don
Winnick, David


Trickett, Jon
Wise, Audrey


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wray, James


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Tyler, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Vaz, Keith



Vis, Dr Rudi
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. Clive Betts and


Ward, Ms Claire
Mr. Keith Hill.


NOES


Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. Bill Rammell and



Mr. Martin Caton.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Business of the House

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): In view of the lack of progress on business this week, the business for tomorrow will now be: consideration of an allocation of time motion on the Employment Relations Bill and on the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The House must listen to the Leader of the House.

Mrs. Beckett: That will be followed by conclusion of the remaining stages of the Food Standards Bill. I shall announce in my business statement tomorrow the arrangements for the completion of Lords amendments to the Employment Relations Bill.

Sir George Young: That is an extraordinary over-reaction to what has been happening this evening. In the debate that has just concluded, the Secretary of State spoke for longer than any of my hon. Friends: he spoke for 15 minutes and included references to "The Goon Show" and to Spitfire pilots. If anybody has been wasting time, it has been the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. As for the Employment Relations Bill, nearly all the remaining amendments are Government amendments and there are only two brief issues which my hon. Friends want to debate, so there is no reason at all to conclude the discussion on that Bill. Finally, what has happened between last Thursday's business statement and tonight's to justify guillotining the Food Standards Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: What has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's is clear to most hon. Members. We have had a substantial amount of time wasted—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—yes, wasted, although I accept not necessarily by the official Opposition as such. Time has been taken up in the House. The Opposition—[Interruption.] It is no good hon. Members asking questions if they do not want to listen to the answer. The Opposition have every right to use time in the House—that is their legitimate right and duty. It is also the right and duty of the Government to protect their business and to protect private Members' time.
The course of events over this week led the Government to have some anxiety about the progress of the Food Standards Bill. The official Opposition were offered a programme motion on the Bill, which is an uncontentious Bill that has had pre-legislative scrutiny. That offer was rejected. The Government are anxious to make sure that private Members' time on Friday is not jeopardised by individual Members dealing with the business tomorrow. That is what has happened between last week's business statement and tonight's.

Mr. Paul Tyler: This is surely an extraordinary situation. One of my colleagues has just said to me, "Try to rearrange these words: piss-up, brewery, organise". [Interruption.] This is an extraordinary and


unnecessary announcement made at very short notice. Without any warning or consultation, the Government have suddenly changed their whole programme of business.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I do not think that that kind of language does the House any credit or helps the situation.

Mr. Tyler: Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the House is treated in the way it has been treated by the Government in the past few minutes, you can understand why there are angry people in the Chamber tonight. There has been no consultation and no opportunity for the opposition parties to put their points of view. I believe that the handling of the Food Standards Bill, in particular, is a disgrace. There is no evidence whatsoever that the House would not treat with great care the proposals that were to be put before it tomorrow. Yet the Government have announced a guillotine motion.
We on these Benches have always been prepared to discuss programme motions, but we have not had an opportunity to have those discussions about this Bill or the Food Standards Bill. We find it quite extraordinary that the Leader of the House should come to the House at short notice—as though the business could not be handled on several days next week.
We are prepared to be flexible. I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider her attitude, particularly regarding tomorrow's business, and will be prepared to speak to the Opposition parties through the usual channels to see whether we can reach agreement. That is surely the best way for the House to consider the business of the House and to afford proper scrutiny to this important legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: In one sense, the hon. Gentleman made a perfectly sensible and legitimate point at the end of his remarks. He said that it ought to be possible to reach agreement about tomorrow's business, which is uncontentious and has pre-legislative scrutiny.

Mr. Alan Duncan: You did not even try.

Mrs. Beckett: That is rubbish. If such an agreement were possible, the Government would give it favourable consideration. However, because it has not been possible to reach such an agreement and because the Government are not prepared to risk either the Food Standards Bill tomorrow or the private Members' business that follows it, we have made this proposal.
If, in the aftermath of this statement, cast-iron assurances can be given and delivered, the Government will consider the matter properly. However, the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for some time and he was here all this week and last week. What confidence does he have that those assurances will be delivered?

Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the Leader of the House explain to the House of Commons and to the country why she wishes to curtail discussion and debate on this legislation and the Food Standards Bill when we are about to enter one of the longest parliamentary recesses that this

country has ever seen? Surely we can cut down the time of the recess and enlarge the opportunities for hon. Members to discuss important legislation.

Mrs. Beckett: That is a brilliant example of exactly what I am talking about. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman thought for a second about checking his facts. If he had, he would know that there were far longer parliamentary recesses under the Government that he supported. Indeed, the recess that we have proposed is only slightly longer than the recess during the same stage in the previous Parliament. So that is absolute rubbish.
As for the hon. Gentleman's point about curtailing discussion, the Government do not intend to curtail discussion either on this legislation or on the Food Standards Bill. We intend to have that discussion in proper time and to come to a proper conclusion. That is what people such as the hon. Gentleman do not like.

Mr. James Paice: Although the principle of the Food Standards Bill may not be contentious, a number of items within it are, and that is the reason for several of the amendments that have been tabled by Conservative and other Members who want a serious debate. The right hon. Lady said that the Bill had had pre-legislative scrutiny, but the relevant Committee did not go through the Bill line by line in the way a Bill should be examined in Standing Committee and on Report.
On one occasion, the Government rejected the views of the right hon. Lady's own Labour-dominated Committee which conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny. The House has every reason to question the Government again and to challenge them to say why they rejected the views of the Labour-dominated Committee that considered the Bill.

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt mistakenly, made the case for the proposal that I have just made, as he appears to be saying—he may not mean it—that he will demand not proper debate, which the Government have no intention of denying, but the kind of line-by-line scrutiny and detailed debate for which there has been no call at any business statement when I have announced the timetable for the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has not even attended any business questions in recent weeks. There has been a repeated pattern of Conservative Members not even showing up when we announce the business of the House, and they have not raised the issue of there not being enough time. Now they turn up at the last minute and say, "We need another five days." I say: no.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Lady will know that I am of a very passive disposition. We share membership of the Modernisation Committee, and at many of its meetings she has said that she looks to avoid using timetable motions. She will be aware that, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, I am also concerned, as I am sure she is, that the House should have procedures whereby legislation that the Government bring before the House for the benefit of the nation is adequately scrutinised.
Will the right hon. Lady read her Government's White Paper, "Our Healthier Nation", which gives 10 tips for better health? Tip No. 4 states:
Manage stress by, for example, talking things through and making time to relax.
I wish the right hon. Lady a happy recess, but will she please assure me that she will allow the House to do as the White Paper advises?

Mrs. Beckett: I am not sure that the House would recognise "passive" as an accurate description of the hon. Gentleman. As a matter of fact, he is one of the more active Members of the House. He is absolutely right to say that in the Modernisation Committee and elsewhere, the Government have made it plain, as I have done as Leader of the House, that we seek to avoid the use of guillotines if possible, and seek programme motions instead. He will recall that I mentioned earlier that we sought a programme motion on the Food Standards Bill, which the House will debate tomorrow.
I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that there must be proper, adequate scrutiny. I know that he has experience of programme motions facilitating such scrutiny. There is common ground between most hon. Members in that we want sensible timetabling of business, and proper, adequate debate and scrutiny. Most of us do not want to waste time.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Will the Leader of the House accept that, having come downstairs from a Select Committee, I have sat in the Chamber for almost all the time since then in a way that has not been matched by the majority of the hon. Members behind her who are shouting? Will she further accept that in the debate on amendment No. 15, which was in my view one of the most serious debates that has ever taken place in the House during my time here, the Secretary of State, quite properly, spoke for almost as long as all the Opposition Members who contributed? If such debates are to be curtailed in this way, that will be to the Government's discredit.

Mrs. Beckett: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point and, of course, I respect his experience in this matter, but I am sure that he will have noticed that I was careful to say that it was the progress and the general climate of the handling of business over the week as a whole that led to the Government's concern. There is nothing that the Government would have liked better than measured progress on tonight's business and the assurance that progress on tomorrow's business will also be measured and sensible and that it will reach the conclusion that we all want by the House's coming to a decision. Anxieties were raised not only that tonight's business might to some degree be in jeopardy but that tomorrow's business and private Members' time might be in jeopardy. The Government did not feel that we ought to run that risk.

Mr. Peter Luff: I agree with the Leader of the House when she says that the conduct of this week's business has prompted this decision, because the Government wasted a whole day of the House's time on Monday with the Second Reading of a Bill which will have to be reintroduced in the next Session. Does she understand that the unfortunate victim of the

Government's mishandling of their own business, which was designed simply to save the Deputy Prime Minister's face, is the Food Standards Bill, which the Government have scandalously mishandled? Pre-legislative scrutiny was unacceptably rushed, as I pointed out to her in detail when the Bill was referred to the Special Select Committee. It has been rushed through Standing Committee, and now we are told, extraordinarily, that it is to be programmed, yet we have no hint of how the House will deal with it.
The Food Standards Bill is important, and if the Government took it seriously, as I am sure they do—I know that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food certainly does—they would have provided Monday or a day next week to debate it. Such a programme motion as is proposed is completely unacceptable. I urge the Leader of the House in all sincerity to reconsider her statement.

Mrs. Beckett: As I hope that I have already made plain, it is the Government's intention that the Food Standards Bill will be properly scrutinised tomorrow and that proceedings can be brought to a proper conclusion. I know that the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends have sympathy with and support for some of the issues behind the Bill; we share their concern in that respect. It is because we are determined not to jeopardise that that we have chosen to take precautionary steps.
As for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Monday's business, I simply draw to his attention the fact that, to my recollection, a minimum of two hours was taken up outside the discussion of business. Indeed, that would have gone on much longer had not the Deputy Speaker allowed a closure motion to be moved. It is the Government's lack of certainty about proper progress of business—not just as a result of the official Opposition, although I remind the hon. Gentleman that they did not agree to a programme motion on the Bill—that has led us reluctantly to take this step.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Lady speaks of a lack of certainty, but I suggest that she consult the Board, because she will find that during the previous debate the Government Front Bencher spoke for 69 minutes and the Opposition Front Bencher for 26 minutes. On that basis, may I ask what possible reason there is for calling an end to tonight's debate and imposing a guillotine?

Mrs. Beckett: You will have observed, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have observed it if he had been listening—that I have been referring not solely to the progress of tonight's business but to the cumulative effect of this week. If we are talking about taking up time frivolously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an honourable place in the canons of this House.

Mr. Peter Snape: Are you aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that what we are listening to is the usual public school end-of-term froth from the Conservative party? Some of the more stupid


Conservative Members have been behaving in this infantile way all week. As for the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who has just asked a question, what does he know about the conduct of tonight's business? He has, after all, been sitting at a table in the restaurant next to me.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Will the right hon. Lady explain why the programme over the last week or so has gone to hell in a handbag in such a fashion that the Government have had to come to the House at short notice to make this statement at 10 o'clock tonight, when, according to my count, there are 298 Government amendments to be considered and only two Opposition amendments to be considered on the business for tonight? Also, given the references that have been made to time that has been taken in the debate, and especially as the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry plainly had no answer to the cogent case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were making for the amendments that they had tabled—he was unable to adduce a sensible reason not to accept them—is not the whole conduct of this business and this late statement tonight a disgrace and an arrogant treatment of Members of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: Usual complaint—as usual, unfounded.

Mr. John Greenway: The right hon. Lady has been extremely frank with the House. She has said that she wishes to timetable the Food Standards Bill to protect Friday's business. Am I not right in thinking that Friday's business in the other place is also to consider the Food Standards Bill? However, be that as it may, although she may be right in concluding that a timetable guillotine motion is appropriate for the Employment Relations Bill, which the House has been considering tonight, many people in rural communities the length and breadth of this country who are gravely concerned about the measures in the Food Standards Bill will regard the guillotine motion as another slap in the face from the Government for people who live in rural areas.

Mrs. Beckett: I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. He will appreciate that I have said that I shall address the timetable for the Employment Relations Bill in tomorrow's business statement. I have made it plain that the Government do intend to provide proper time tomorrow for debate of the Food Standards Bill. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would have required more time than business would have allowed tomorrow for the Food Standards Bill—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman nodding. He is actually making the Government's case. If there are Members in the House who believe, whether as representatives of the official Opposition or as Back Benchers, that inadequate time was allowed for the Food Standards Bill, it was their job as Members of the House to raise the matter at business questions. It was also their job to raise the matter with their Front-Bench team if they thought that inadequate time had been allowed. We have had repeated examples of Members who could not be bothered to raise such issues in advance and who then come along at the last

minute and say, "We need another day", or "We need another half a day. The hon. Gentleman is making the case for the guillotine.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The House will know that the Department of Trade and Industry has been trying to bring forward Second Reading of the electronic communications Bill, and it has been trying to blame the Conservative party for not allowing it to do so. It seems extraordinarily strange that the right hon. Lady is telling us that she was worried about getting the three Bills through this evening—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] I have four—any advance on five? She was telling us that and complaining that there was not enough time. She wanted to get a completely new Bill into the House before the end of the Session. Surely it is the mismanagement of the right hon. Lady, who should think about her own position before the Prime Minister sacks her, that has got the House into the position in which it finds itself tonight.

Mrs. Beckett: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has reminded me of a further and important point, which is that when the Government scheduled the business for today's debates, including the three Bills, no Opposition Member said that there would be inadequate time to consider them. Now, at 10.35 pm, we are told that the time was never adequate: too late.

Sir Robert Smith: I want to clarify one of the right hon. Lady's answers, when she said that tomorrow's debate on the Food Standards Bill will be the same length as that announced in the business statement last week. Does that mean that any time taken up by the programme motion will not eat into time that would have been available to the Food Standards Bill?

Mrs. Beckett: No. I said that there would be adequate time for the debate. The issue was the length of time, which is something that we shall announce tomorrow.

CONTRACTS (RIGHTS OF THIRD PARTIES) BILL [LORDS]

Order for consideration read.

To be considered tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CINEMAS AND FILMS

That the draft Films (Modification of the Definition of 'British Film') Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8th July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 36.

Division No. 270]
[10.36 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Alexander, Douglas
Ashton, Joe


Allan, Richard
Atkins, Charlotte






Banks, Tony
Dean, Mrs Janet


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Donohoe, Brian H


Bayley, Hugh
Doran, Frank


Beard, Nigel
Dowd, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Drew, David


Begg, Miss Anne
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Edwards, Huw


Bennett, Andrew F
Ennis, Jeff


Berry, Roger
Etherington, Bill


Best, Harold
Fearn, Ronnie


Betts, Clive
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Fisher, Mark


Body, Sir Richard
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Borrow, David
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Boswell, Tim
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Flynn, Paul


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Follett, Barbara


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brand, Dr Peter
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Browne, Desmond
Gapes, Mike


Buck, Ms Karen
Gardiner, Barry


Burden, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burnett, John
Gerrard, Neil


Burstow, Paul
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Godsiff, Roger


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gorrie, Donald


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Caplin, Ivor
Grocott, Bruce


Casale, Roger
Grogan, John


Caton, Martin
Gunnell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chaytor, David
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hancock, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hill, Keith


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Clwyd, Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hood, Jimmy


Cohen, Harry
Hopkins, Kelvin


Collins, Tim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Colman, Tony
Howells, Dr Kim


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cousins, Jim
Hurst, Alan


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Davidson, Ian



Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)





Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Rammell, Bill


Keetch, Paul
Rapson, Syd


Kemp, Fraser
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Khabra, Piara S



Kidney, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooker, Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Roy, Frank


Laxton, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Lepper, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Leslie, Christopher
Ryan, Ms Joan


Levitt, Tom
Salter, Martin


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Sanders, Adrian


Linton, Martin
Savidge, Malcolm


Lock, David
Sawford, Phil


Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McAllion, John
Sheerman, Barry


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McCabe, Steve
Shipley, Ms Debra


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Singh, Marsha


Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis


McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary



McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McNulty, Tony
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McWalter, Tony
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mallaber, Judy
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Merron, Gillian
Stoate, Dr Howard


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stott, Roger


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Mitchell, Austin
Stringer, Graham


Moffatt, Laura
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morley, Elliot
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mudie, George
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tipping, Paddy


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Touhig, Don


O'Hara, Eddie
Trickett, Jon


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Öpik, Lembit
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Vis, Dr Rudi


Pickthall, Colin
Wallace, James


Pike, Peter L
Walley, Ms Joan


Plaskitt, James
Ward, Ms Claire


Pope, Greg
Wareing, Robert N


Pound, Stephen
Watts, David


Powell, Sir Raymond
White, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wicks, Malcolm


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prosser, Gwyn
Willis, Phil






Wilson, Brian
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Winnick, David
Wyatt, Derek


Wise, Audrey



Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wray, James
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Beggs, Roy
Leigh, Edward


Blunt, Crispin
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Body, Sir Richard
Loughton, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Luff, Peter


Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Randall, John


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
St Aubyn, Nick



Swayne, Desmond


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Townend, John



Tyrie, Andrew



Viggers, Peter


Collins, Tim
Wardle, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Fallon, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Gill, Christopher
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie



Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tellers for the Noes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Thames Gateway

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Mr. Nigel Beard: The Thames riverside to the east of London, beyond docklands, includes parts of Barking, Dagenham, Havering and Thurrock on the north bank, and Greenwich, Bexley and Dartford on the south bank. That is the London Thames gateway.
The area provides one third of all London's jobs—some 900,000—and includes the largest concentration of manufacturing firms in London. A high proportion of local residents—about 60 per cent.—work locally. Major areas of land, amounting to 2,000 hectares, are available for industrial, commercial and residential development. Potentially, it is the greatest area of opportunity within Greater London today.
At each end of the area, major investments are being made in projects of regional and national significance. To the west is the London docklands, including the millennium exhibition site, the dome, which will be served by the Jubilee line extension and an extended docklands light railway. To the east, the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link will end at Ebbsfleet, linking the area quickly and easily with the continent. In addition, two major retail centres have opened—at Lakeside on the north bank and at Bluewater on the south bank—which serve both London and the south-east region generally.
When I look at the potential opportunity, I have a sense of having been here before. In the 1970s, I was privileged to be the first head of the London Docklands development corporation, and was responsible for establishing the organisation, for drawing up the development strategy and for initiating some of the earlier infrastructure. It was the largest area of urban development in the world at that time.
Today, I have the great privilege to represent in Parliament a constituency that is central to a similar major opportunity of national significance in the Thames gateway. The comparison between the London docklands development and the potential of London's Thames gateway is both exhilarating and sobering. It is sobering because many of the obstacles that stand in the way of realising the potential of the Thames gateway are the same as have bedevilled progress in docklands. The political climate of the 1970s made progress in development dependent on huge public sector investments. The economic austerity of the time prevented the Government from making those necessary investments to any great extent, and private investors were then reluctant to make parallel commitments.
The political climate then swung to the other extreme with the change of Government, so that the development was seen as being promoted almost entirely by market forces. However, the transport infrastructure of the area was totally inadequate. An early extension of the Jubilee line through the area was regarded as a prerequisite of private investment throughout the area. The Jubilee line, however, could not be financed through private investment.
The result was that private investors cherry-picked the areas around Wapping and the Surrey docks, while the potential of huge areas downstream was not realised.
Canary Wharf progressed only when the Government became committed to putting in the docklands light railway, and now the Jubilee line. The Greenwich peninsula remained derelict until the millennium dome came along, and the Jubilee line will arrive, there 20 years late, to accompany it.
The point of that analysis is not recrimination. It is to learn lessons, so that we do not repeat earlier mistakes downstream. A major lesson to be learned is that progress does not have to depend on comprehensive public investment in the style of the new towns. Equally, market forces alone will not progress development. There genuinely is a third way, which depends on a firm commitment to public funding to improve transport infrastructure, accessibility and the environment. That will, in turn, provide a favourable basis for essential private investment.
That strategy depends utterly on a firm commitment to spending on infrastructure, either through direct investment, PFI schemes or guarantees to limit the risk of the private investor. A fragmented, haphazard approach to public investment dependent on the state of finance in individual local authorities or public bodies will not generate confidence.
The problems of transport, accessibility and the environment for the Thames gateway area of London are similar to those in the docklands. The river and the relative absence of river crossings in that area, as compared with the equivalent area upstream of Tower bridge, are a major inhibition to the economic development of the area. A recent study by the Government office for London stressed that point, as has every study over the past 20 years, going back to the docklands strategy in the 1970s.
The effect of the river barrier has been to limit the scope of companies to recruit over a wide area, or to move their goods and services to other parts of London. Residents of the riverside wards in Greenwich and Bexley cannot travel easily to job opportunities elsewhere in London, so unemployment there is well above the London average: it is 10.5 per cent, compared with 6.3 per cent.
Environmental objections must not become a veto on enhanced river crossing capacity, or these problems will deepen as the environmental benefit for some blights the economic welfare of many others. A balance between environmental and economic interests must be achieved.
On the south bank of the river in Greenwich and Bexley, the scope for moving goods westward towards the Blackwall tunnel or eastwards towards the M25 and Dover is limited by constrictions and consequential congestion on the road network. Likewise, the limitations of east-west public transport add to road congestion, as employees coming into the area or travelling to jobs elsewhere in the Thames gateway have no alternative but to use their cars.
The recently published study of new crossings sponsored by the Government office for London has made proposals to tackle the deficiency of river crossing capacity in east London. The solution, for which the economic benefit is assessed as double the cost, is to provide a third crossing at the Blackwall tunnel, a bridge over the Thames at Galleons reach for local traffic and a busway, and a rail tunnel at Woolwich capable of taking six trains an hour in each direction between Ebbsfleet, the channel tunnel rail link phase one terminus, and

Stratford on the north bank of the river, passing through Bexley and Greenwich and called the Thames gateway metro.
This transport concept also involves introducing and harmonising toll charges between the Blackwall tunnel, the new Thames bridge and the Dartford river crossing. Taken together, this package of three measures could contribute to the regeneration of Greenwich-Bexley Thameside, and deflect passengers to public transport instead of their travelling by car.
Any two elements of the package could be privately financed without public sector support. The third element, which is vital to realising the full impact, would require public funding of about £25 million. That package would not only alleviate the present lack of river crossings, but provide east-west public transport through Greenwich and Bexley by way of the Thames gateway metro between Ebbsfleet and Stratford north of the river, and by way of the bus link over the Thames bridge and along the south Thames development route.
The south Thames development route consists of a combination of the roads A206 and A2016, which are dual carriageway most of the way between Woolwich and the M25, and then goes on to Gillingham. According to the answer to a recent parliamentary question, the Government have invested some £40 million in the route between Woolwich and the M25 in the last 10 years. That reflects the importance of the route for commercial transport into and out of the industrial areas on the south bank of the Thames.
There is just one snag in this grand design—the 1.7 km of the south Thames development route that passes through Crayford, in my constituency. It is still single carriageway, and a major source of congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin) and I are regularly lobbied by employers and residents about the slow-moving queues that are adding to their costs. A local conference produced many stories from industrial development agents who had abandoned the idea of locating in the area for that reason alone. I have a list of 50 major employers who have said that they are adversely affected by congestion on this stretch of road.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), then Minister of Transport, presented his road review to the House in July last year, he agreed that high priority should go to schemes under which an unimproved stretch of road prevents full realisation of the true value of earlier road investment. I doubt whether the Minister could find a better exemplification of that principle than Thames road, Crayford, the 1.7 km stretch of the south Thames development route to which I have referred.
Although the London borough of Bexley put the project at the top of its priority list, the present understanding is that it may be seven to 10 years before the problem is resolved. What is the point of so much earlier investment, if the true benefit is to be delayed for such a protracted period?
I am grateful to the Minister for letting me know of the river crossing proposals to which I have referred. I welcome the intention to safeguard a third Blackwall crossing, and to provide an alignment of the Thames gateway bridge with the Woolwich rail tunnel; but I am


dismayed by indications that the Government will now delay progress until the mayor of London and the Greater London Authority are in place.
In a letter written last July, the Minister said that she firmly believed that the whole issue should be left until the Greater London Authority could form a view on it, but there is always some such reason why the time is not ripe. No doubt the Greater London Authority will demand a year or two, or more, to settle in, which probably puts a decision three or more years away.
Timing is important in matters such as this. It is bad government that causes people to await the convenience of the governors. All public and private-sector partners in both the Thames gateway London partnership and the Bexley Thameside partnership have written to the Minister to confirm their need for work on the proposals now.
There have been two undesirable features of this country's planning and urban development arrangements. The first is a mañana mentality, leading to institutionalised procrastination. The second—despite the good intentions of planners—is a piecemeal approach to opportunities when success demands concurrent action on several fronts.
The Thames gateway in London offers an opportunity for urban regeneration, which depends on public action on transport, public services and the environment, and on commercial action to provide jobs, housing and many other features of life in the 21st century. At present, general good intentions are expressed by public authorities and there are outline plans for a river crossing and east-west public transport. We have no idea when any of that will come about. All the signs are that the Blackwall tunnel's third crossing, the rail tunnel at Woolwich, the metro line, the bridge at Galleons reach and work on Thames road, Crayford will be handled by different public authorities, piecemeal and without any concerted timetable.
It may be that, for financial reasons, the timetable for infrastructure projects will be longer than many people would like, but any timetable that expressed a commitment that investors could believe in would be better than a "this year, next year, some time, never" approach. I ask the Minister to recognise that a piecemeal, project-by-project approach to regenerate the Thames gateway in London, with no commitment to a target date for completion, will fail. It will not give private investors sufficient confidence in the future of the area for them to make commitments.
Conversely, my appeal is for a concerted programme of infrastructure projects such as I have outlined to be drawn up with firm commitments to finance and timing. Work on the programme could be started now and presented to the mayor and Greater London Authority for ratification, or amendment on completion. There is no reason why the mayor and the authority should be an excuse for delay. Nor are the amounts of public money that are needed large.
Above all, let those projects be looked at as a package contributing to the economic regeneration of the area. Let them not be seen narrowly as isolated road, rail or tunnelling schemes. Success in realising the true potential of the Thames gateway in London depends on joined-up government delivering joined-up action on time.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) on obtaining the Adjournment debate and on affording the House the opportunity to consider the issue. The House has been particularly fortunate because he has such direct experience of both the area and the issues inherent within Thames gateway.
As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Government actively support Thames gateway as a priority regeneration corridor. The sub-region's potential for growth and investment is widely recognised.
Thames gateway can boast a number of particularly important development schemes, where much needed investment on brown-field sites is delivering key London facilities and much needed new resources. At the royal docks, a new exhibition and conference centre is under construction. A new university campus is to open in September.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, Greenwich peninsula is the home not only of the dome, but of the millennium village. It is the site of a major public transport interchange, including North Greenwich station, which is part of the Jubilee line extension, and a major bus interchange. The pier at the dome will enable river buses to serve what was formerly the site of a gas works.
Greenwich peninsula is now a site of national importance, representing significant Government commitment to the sub-region. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, the Jubilee line extension is already serving the peninsula.
There are many other examples of real activity in Thames gateway. Together, they are creating momentum to bring about lasting change, but we acknowledge that more is yet to be done. Barriers to development still exist. Contamination on sites, weak infrastructure and excluded communities remain. However, the Government are committed to ensuring continued change, both in physical and social terms, for the benefit of London, local communities and the wider sub-region.
On 15 July, there were two important announcements for Thames gateway. The single regeneration budget, SRB5, has brought significant new funding to the region. At least £33 million has been allocated for SRB5 projects within the primary Thames gateway regeneration areas—a real injection of funding to ensure that the benefits of new investment are realised in both the short and long terms.
The proposed assisted area map provided further good news, retaining Thames gateway wards within the eligible areas to apply for regional selective assistance. That will create and safeguard jobs, attract inward investment and contribute to regional competitiveness.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, transport improvements play a key role in the regeneration of Thames gateway. An extensive programme of improvements is under way to enable strategic accessibility to the area and to sites of potential major development. That will make Thames gateway a source of employment and a more effective competitor for business.
Phase 1 of the channel tunnel rail link is now under way. I am sure that hon. Members will recall that the positive regeneration impact of the link was a fundamental consideration in securing the project. It will


consolidate the area's role as the gateway to Europe for London and the United Kingdom, and it will provide a new economic role for the area on which to build future development growth.
The first phase of the Jubilee line extension is already open, as I have said. Phases 2 and 3 will follow in the summer and in the autumn. The new docklands light railway extension to Lewisham is due to be in service shortly, and planned further extensions to the DLR will include access to City airport. An extensive bus network, providing high-quality public transport north and south of the river, is being explored by London Transport, in conjunction with local boroughs. As I have said, under this Government the River Thames is being brought into play as part of the capital's transport network.
The new stretch of the A13 has been opened, linking Dagenham to the M25. Also, the go-ahead has been given to the design, build, finance and operate plans for the A13, as part of the trunk roads programme. Collectively, these projects represent a major investment by the Government in providing Thames gateway with the integrated transport system that it requires to achieve its economic and regeneration goals.

Mr. Bob Russell: When does the Minister expect that the Stratford interchange of the channel tunnel rail link will be ready? The link will benefit not only the Thames gateway, but the whole of Essex and East Anglia.

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the first phase of the channel tunnel rail link is on time and on budget. The requirement is that for the whole line to be built, so I cannot give a specific date for the completion of the Stratford interchange. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no doubt that it will be completed.
The Government have also taken the lead in exploring the scope for developing additional crossings across the River Thames, east of the Blackwall tunnel, to assist still further with the regeneration objective. We are aware of the strong interest among local communities in securing additional crossings, and of the importance of accessibility in opening up new business, employment and leisure markets in the area. That is why we made reference to the potential value of an integrated package of new crossings in our integrated transport White Paper, published last year.
A package of crossings has been developed, based on the appraisal of a number of different options against a specially commissioned appraisal framework. The Government have decided that the responsibility for determining the form of a crossings package should lie with the new mayor of London.
The mayor has regeneration, transport and planning responsibilities for London and will be in the ideal position to assess the most suitable integrated outcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford stressed the importance of adopting a

comprehensive approach to the programme and of avoiding a fragmented approach, with different crossings subject to separate and piecemeal proposals. It was precisely to facilitate an integrated approach, both to the planning and funding of the final strategy, that the decision was taken.
To enable the mayor to reach a decision on the future of the crossings as quickly as possible, further development work is being co-ordinated. The Government have safeguarded the most promising alignment for each crossing. London First is exploring, with private sector partners, the scope for its participation in the programme. London Transport, together with docklands light railway and Railtrack, is examining the feasibility of a DLR-based crossing to Woolwich. English Partnerships has undertaken a study of the regeneration implications and benefits of the crossings package. It is now considering the appointment of a project manager to orchestrate the work appropriate to this interim period.
I trust that it is clear, therefore, that the project continues to be taken forward in a sensible and practical way, which matches current circumstances. I am sorry that our decision has caused my hon. Friend dismay, but it is important that decisions taken now do not pre-empt the mayor's choice, either in the final form of the crossings or the financial structures put in place to secure them. I am certain that the approach adopted by the Government will achieve the most satisfactory and secure outcome to this important but complex issue.
My hon. Friend focused on a short section of Thames road, which he has highlighted as the only single carriageway section of the south Thames development route in Bexley. He also referred to the findings of a recently published study sponsored by the Government office for London. The south Thames development route could play an important role in any strategy which arises from this study. Certainly that could lead to improved public transport links on this section of Thames gateway.
I understand that the London borough of Bexley is keen to develop the case for this road scheme in its interim transport plan. In the event, it would certainly wish to focus on the regeneration benefits for Thames gateway and any potential contribution to improved transport integration. However, my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be wrong of me to go further than that in prejudging the merits, or otherwise, of the Bexley interim transport plan.
As I said in my opening remarks, the House has been privileged to hear the wealth of detail, stemming from direct experience, which my hon. Friend brought to this evening's debate. He detailed the overwhelming importance of the development of the Thames gateway, not only economically and environmentally, but socially. I reassure him that the Government share his appreciation of the importance of Thames gateway.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Eleven o'clock.